pg_maintenance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'provides visibility' and is for monitoring/checking/viewing/tracking/planning, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's safe to use, what format the output takes, or if there are rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like use cases. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes core functionality, the second provides specific usage scenarios, and the third reinforces the tool's value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage for a monitoring tool. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how 'app' and 'database' parameters relate to the maintenance monitoring functionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Monitor database maintenance status and operations' with specific use cases listed (check windows, view activities, track progress, plan tasks). It distinguishes itself from siblings like maintenance_on/maintenance_off (which control maintenance) and pg_info (general database info). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like pg_backups or pg_upgrade.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when you need to:' followed by four specific scenarios. This gives clear context for when to select this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives like maintenance_on/maintenance_off for controlling maintenance state or pg_info for general database status.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.