replication_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is monitored (publications, subscriptions, lag) and the PG version requirement, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what exact output format is returned. This is a moderate gap for a monitoring tool.

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, well-structured sentence that packs in the core purpose, resource, and specific details (publications, subscriptions, lag, PostgreSQL 13+). It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but is incomplete regarding return values, parameter usage, and behavioral safety (e.g., read-only nature). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter (database_name), and the description does not mention it at all. There is no added meaning beyond the parameter name and schema constraints, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Monitor') and a specific resource ('logical replication'), listing concrete aspects (publications, subscriptions, lag). It also specifies the PostgreSQL version range, which distinguishes it from related tools like wal_monitor or progress_report.

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 clear context by naming logical replication and its metrics, which implies when to use it (e.g., when checking logical replication health) without explicitly naming alternatives. It does not explicitly exclude physical replication tools, but the scope is sufficiently clear for typical use.

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