list_partitions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists and monitors, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, what privileges are needed, or what 'monitor partition pruning efficiency' entails. This is incomplete for a tool that may rely on system statistics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The PostgreSQL 12+ version qualification adds useful context without verbosity. It is extremely concise and easy to scan.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, required permissions, and the meaning of 'partition pruning efficiency.' It does none of this. The tool is clearly about partition monitoring, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect when invoking it.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no parameter-level guidance. The parameters table, schema, and database_name are named but their roles, defaults, and interaction (e.g., whether they are all optional and what happens if omitted) are entirely undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 lists partitioned tables and monitors partition pruning efficiency, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_objects or list_indexes. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether 'list partitioned tables' means all partitioned tables in scope or the partitions of a given 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The PostgreSQL 12+ version note gives context but does not explain when to choose this over alternatives like describe_table, list_indexes, or timeseries_partition. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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