huge_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects it might have (even monitoring tools might modify internal state or require elevated privileges). The verb 'monitor' weakly implies passivity, but this is not explicit.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is concise without being under-specified in terms of its main intent.

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?

Despite the simple shape (one optional param, no output schema), the description is incomplete for actual use. It lacks explanation of the parameter's role, what data or recommendations look like, and any prerequisites or side effects. For an agent to invoke it correctly alongside many sibling monitors, more context is needed.

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 has one optional param (database_name) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The agent gets no help understanding how database_name affects monitoring or recommendations, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Monitor') and resource ('huge pages usage') and clearly states the output (configuration recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools like wal_monitor or transaction_monitor, which target different resources.

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 implies a usage scenario (monitoring huge pages and getting recommendations) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It's the minimum viable: implied usage without clear context.

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