generated_columns

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'List' (implying read-only) and PostgreSQL 12+, but lacks details about permissions, side effects, or output behavior. The dependency monitoring is vague.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain parameter usage, return format, or whether all filters are optional (they are). The version note is useful, but more context would improve selection confidence.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters (table, schema, database_name). Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how they are used together or whether any are required.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('generated columns'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('monitor their dependencies') plus PostgreSQL 12+ compatibility. This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like list_indexes or describe_table.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for generated columns but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over similar introspection tools.

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