configuration_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as reviewing and providing tuning observations, and lists possible include options. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, but the context implies it. The description could be slightly improved by noting no side effects, but it is still clear.

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 well-structured with clear headings (LEVEL:, USE FOR:, DO NOT USE FOR:, INCLUDE OPTIONS:, Examples:). It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words. Every section adds value and is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, one with enum, plus output schema), the description is complete. It covers all include options, provides multiple examples, explains the tool's level and valid use cases, and offers exclusions. The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation.

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%. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing detailed examples for the include parameter and listing all option values. The url and format parameters are adequately described in the schema, and the description doesn't need to add more. The examples significantly enhance understanding.

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 reviews PostgreSQL configuration settings and provides tuning observations. It specifies the level (Server instance configuration) and lists specific use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what NOT to use it for, with alternative tool names.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., for configuration settings, tuning, 'why is DB slow globally?') and when NOT to use it (e.g., database-level health, query optimization), with clear alternative tool names in parentheses. This fully informs the agent's decision.

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