Pg Activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists data categories. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it is a point-in-time snapshot, or whether it has side effects or permission requirements. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, which helps, but the lack of annotations, usage guidance, and parameter explanation leaves significant gaps. For a monitoring tool with a generic optional parameter, the description does not fully equip an agent to invoke it correctly beyond calling with no arguments.

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 only parameter is a generic object/null passthrough with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. An agent cannot tell whether params are needed, what keys they accept, or how they affect the returned activity view.

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 identifies the resource (PostgreSQL activity) and the specific data categories it surfaces: current queries, states, and waits. This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like pg_connections, pg_locks, and pg_slow_queries, though it is expressed as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of pg_connections, pg_locks, or pg_slow_queries. There is no mention of typical scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent must infer when 'full activity' is the right choice.

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