replication_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the options and examples, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like required privileges, performance impact, or safety guarantees (e.g., read-only nature). Adequate but could be more explicit.

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-organized with labeled sections (LEVEL, USE FOR, DO NOT USE FOR, INCLUDE OPTIONS, Examples). It is concise, front-loaded with a summary, and each sentence is purposeful. No redundancy.

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 (server-level replication health with multiple facets) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: scope, usage, options, examples, and exclusions. It is fully informative 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?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant context beyond the schema for the 'include' parameter via the INCLUDE OPTIONS list and examples. For 'url' and 'format', it echoes schema but no added depth. Overall, it enhances 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's purpose: 'Comprehensive replication health - physical, logical, CDC, slots, WAL, archiving.' It specifies the server level and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what not to use (database_health, query_performance, configuration_review).

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 'USE FOR' and 'DO NOT USE FOR' sections, naming alternatives (database_health, query_performance, configuration_review). It also includes examples for each option, guiding correct selection.

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