Pg Replication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only adds the conditional 'if configured' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when replication is not configured, or whether elevated privileges are required.

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 very concise and front-loaded with no redundant phrasing. However, it is also under-specified, so the brevity is more a sign of minimalism than of well-earned concise structure.

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 simple status tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. It is not complete, though, because it omits usage context, behavioral details, and any parameter hints that an agent would need for a robust 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 description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is a generic free-form 'params' object with no documented properties. The description adds no meaning about what parameters this tool accepts, leaving the agent without useful guidance.

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 'Replication status (if configured)' clearly identifies the resource (PostgreSQL replication) and the intent (reporting status). It is distinguishable from sibling pg_* tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show'.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pg_activity or pg_stats. The only condition implied is that replication must be configured, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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