pg_connection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'checks' health, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotation coverage, the description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about behavioral expectations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words and is efficiently structured. However, a slightly expanded structure could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 two parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what information the health check returns (e.g., metrics, status), nor does it guide on interpreting results. Given the many sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient context for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions: target (from ~/.dbx/targets/) and profile (optional, defaults to active). The description adds value by clarifying that the check applies to the active or a specific named profile, but this largely mirrors the parameter descriptions. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 checks connection pool health for the active or a specific named profile. It uses a specific verb 'check' and resource 'connection pool health', distinguishing it from connection management siblings like pg_connect or pg_list_connections. However, it could be more specific about what 'health' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions operating on active or named profiles, there is no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to prefer this over pg_list_connections or other health-check tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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