Pg Connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states a noun phrase and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, potential performance impact, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a diagnostic 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?

The description is a single short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It lacks structure or front-loading of actionable information; no sentences earn their place because there is only a title-like statement.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not hint at the return format or what fields are provided. For a tool that likely lists connection details (e.g., pid, user, database, state), the agent cannot anticipate the response shape. The description is inadequate for a zero-parameter tool with a generic params object.

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 input schema has a single 'params' field with additionalProperties:true, effectively accepting any arbitrary parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what parameters are expected or how to filter/limit results, leaving the agent without any guidance on constructing a valid call.

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 'Активные подключения к PostgreSQL' (Active connections to PostgreSQL) clearly identifies the resource and topic, distinguishing it from siblings like pg_activity or pg_locks. It implies the tool reports on connections, though it doesn't specify whether it lists, counts, or monitors them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where pg_connections is preferable to pg_activity, pg_locks, or other PostgreSQL tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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