statements_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions parallel workers and WAL tracking but doesn't disclose what the output includes, whether it's read-only, or any performance implications. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise phrase, which is efficient, but it lacks detail that could be added with a few more sentences. It's not padded, but it's also not fully specified; it reads more like a title than a functional description.

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 tool that analyzes pg_stat_statements with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'enhanced', the expected output format, or how to use the parameters. The agent would need to guess or rely on the schema, which is incomplete given the lack of param semantics.

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 doesn't mention either the 'limit' or 'database_name' parameters. The schema provides types and constraints, but the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to infer what these parameters do in context.

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 identifies the resource (pg_stat_statements) and the action (analysis), and mentions specific features (parallel workers, WAL tracking) that distinguish it from siblings like get_slow_queries and wal_monitor. However, it doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns or how 'enhanced' differs from a standard analysis.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools like get_slow_queries or wal_monitor.

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