get_upgrade_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool returns the latest minor and may suggest a major upgrade, which is useful but does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. As a 'get' tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated explicitly. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then provides a brief behavioral explanation, and ends with a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 is relatively simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain the return value. It does describe the general output (latest minor and possible major), but it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., string, object, list) or address edge cases such as what happens if the version is already the latest or is EOL. This leaves some ambiguity for the 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?

The input schema has no description for the parameter, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by providing an 'Args' section that explains the parameter 'from_version' as the currently installed PostgreSQL version and gives a concrete example ('16.3'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides the type and name.

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: to suggest a recommended upgrade target for a PostgreSQL version. It specifies the verb 'suggest' and the resource 'upgrade target', and further clarifies behavior by mentioning the latest minor and possible major upgrade. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_minor, which focuses only on the latest minor version.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, and sibling tools such as get_latest_minor or compare_versions offer related functionality without any differentiation. The usage context is only implied by the description of what the tool returns.

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