baasix_realtime_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' clearly signals a read-only diagnostic operation, and the return list explains exactly what configuration values will be reported. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read-only config check this is a minor gap.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose and then provides a compact, scannable bullet list of return fields. Every line adds value with no repetition 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 a zero-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the action, the expected walLevel, and the names and meanings of all returned config fields. No critical usage or interpretation information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so no parameter-level guidance is needed. Instead, the description usefully documents the meaning of the returned fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 action and resource: 'Check PostgreSQL replication configuration for WAL-based realtime.' The bulleted return fields make the purpose concrete and distinguish it from sibling realtime tools like baasix_realtime_enable or baasix_realtime_status, which are about enabling or checking status rather than inspecting replication configuration.

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 implies use as a diagnostic before or during realtime setup, especially with 'Should be logical for realtime to work,' but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baasix_realtime_status or baasix_realtime_enable. The usage guidance is inferable, not stated.

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