PostgreSQL-Performance-Tuner-Mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what gets analyzed (specific setting categories) and the comparison methodology (against best practices and system resources), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet points of analyzed categories and a final sentence explaining the comparison methodology. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (configuration analysis with 2 parameters), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain what the recommendations look like, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'key performance-related settings' and lists categories that map to the enum, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('review', 'analyzes', 'compares') and identifies the resource ('PostgreSQL configuration settings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on configuration analysis rather than query analysis, index management, or performance monitoring.

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 for when to use this tool (analyzing PostgreSQL configuration against best practices) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The implicit differentiation from siblings is present but not explicit.

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