db_postgres_health

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

No annotations provided, and description only mentions 'SAFE' and checks version/connections/size. It does not disclose permissions needed, return format, or potential side effects, leaving a gap for a health-check tool.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with '[SAFE]', clearly and concisely conveys purpose without extraneous words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately captures the tool's purpose. Could mention return format, but still reasonably complete for a simple health check.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so description adds no parameter info. Baseline score of 3 applies as no additional meaning is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks PostgreSQL database health and lists included aspects (version, connections, size). This differentiates it from sibling health tools for other databases like db_mongodb_health.

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 '[SAFE]' prefix hints at read-only use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like db_postgres_query. Implied for health checks, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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