pg_reload_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and a parameter requirement, omitting effects (e.g., applies to all server processes), prerequisites (e.g., superuser), or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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, focused sentence conveys the purpose and the critical confirm constraint. No wasted words; structure is ideal for quick reading.

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?

Despite low tool complexity and full schema coverage, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, effect on connections) and does not explain the target parameter beyond what schema provides. This limits an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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% with both parameters described. The description repeats the confirm requirement, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Reload server configuration files') and specifies the resource ('postgresql.conf'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are mostly query or connection operations.

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 explicitly requires 'confirm=true', which is a key usage condition. However, it does not provide context on when to use this tool (e.g., after config changes) or alternatives, but no siblings serve a similar purpose.

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