Pg Stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names subject areas and does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has performance costs, or what 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 text is short and free of filler, but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a structured instruction. The brevity is not well balanced because the rest of the definition does not carry the missing information.

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 lack of annotations, a minimal generic schema, and a large set of closely related pg_* tools, this one-line description is insufficient. Even with an output schema, the agent lacks enough context to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 exposes only a generic free-form 'params' object with zero property descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how to specify tables, indexes, or databases as parameters, so the agent must guess keys and formats.

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 subject area — statistics about tables, indexes, and databases — so it is more than a tautology. However, it lacks a verb and does not contrast with sibling pg_* tools like pg_tables or pg_activity, leaving the exact action ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose pg_stats versus the many related tools such as pg_tables, pg_activity, or pg_locks. The only implicit clue is the word 'statistics', which is not enough to form a reliable selection rule.

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