parallel_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Monitor' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what data is returned, whether any system state is affected, or what permissions are needed. It is vague about the actual behavior beyond a superficial high-level statement.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff, making it easy to parse quickly. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it lacks detail that would be valuable.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only one simple parameter, so the description must carry more weight. As written, it does not explain what output to expect, what 'performance' metrics are included, or any context about parallel query workers. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 defines a single parameter 'database_name' with a pattern and maxLength, but the description does not explain how this parameter affects the monitoring behavior. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all.

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 the specific verb 'Monitor' and identifies the resource as 'parallel query worker usage and performance', which clearly states its purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling monitoring tools like progress_report or wal_monitor.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is a significant gap given the large set of sibling monitoring tools.

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