peaka_get_materialized_query_statuses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the tool returns schedule settings and both last and next execution times, and it can operate in a list-all or single-query mode depending on queryId presence. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, and uses a short second paragraph for the projectId workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy 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?

For an inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned data (last refresh status, last/next scheduled times, interval/cron settings) and the two invocation modes. It also covers the prerequisite workflow for projectId. Minor details like pagination or status value formats are absent, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions, including the source of queryId from peaka_list_queries with queryType MATERIALIZED. The tool description reinforces the optional behavior of queryId but does not add much semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the auto-refresh state of materialized saved queries' in the Peaka project. It also enumerates the returned data (last refresh status, scheduled execution times, schedule settings), and the optional single-query vs. list-all behavior clearly separates it from sibling tools like refresh or cache status tools.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: it tells the agent to call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown, ask the user which project to use, and remember that projectId for subsequent calls. It also explains when to pass queryId vs. omit it, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with closely related alternatives such as peaka_get_cache_statuses or peaka_get_query.

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