wal_monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists what is monitored but does not state whether it's read-only, required permissions, side effects, or whether it returns current snapshots or historical trends. This is insufficient 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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and lists key monitored aspects. Every word adds meaning with no repetition or filler.

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 description is minimal: no output schema, no annotations, and no context about return values or prerequisites. For a tool with only one optional parameter, it still leaves out critical behavioral and usage context needed by an agent.

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?

There is one optional parameter, database_name, with a pattern but no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to clarify how database_name filters or affects the monitoring scope.

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 a monitoring tool for WAL size, growth, archive status, and replication slots. It names specific resources and metrics, making it distinct from generic siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from replication_status.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replication_status or backup_monitor. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no decision support.

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