backup_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Monitor', which implies read-only, but does not disclose whether special privileges are needed, what the output format is, or any limitations. The tool's actual behavior (e.g., polling, time ranges) is unspecified, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the key purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 the simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main focus but omits crucial context: the parameter's purpose, expected return format, and how it differs from similar monitoring tools. It is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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?

The schema includes database_name with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, its role in the monitoring context (e.g., how it filters backup progress or recovery timelines) is undefined, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 monitors 'pg_basebackup progress' and 'PITR recovery timeline', using a specific verb ('Monitor') and distinct resources. This differentiates it from siblings like progress_report, wal_monitor, and replication_status, which focus on other aspects.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like progress_report or replication_status. It implies usage through its stated purpose but lacks any exclusion criteria or mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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