analyze_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses '[WRITE][risk=medium]', 'No undo', 'captures prior stats for audit', and 'Takes a brief read lock while sampling', all beyond what structured data provides.

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 front-loaded with a purpose/risk header, followed by two concise behavioral sentences and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema defaults.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, risks, locking, preview option, and all parameters. It is a complete and self-contained specification for this tool.

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%, but the description includes an Args list that explains all three parameters: table (optionally schema-qualified), dry_run (preview), and target (config default). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with '[WRITE] ANALYZE TABLE to refresh index statistics', providing a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like index_stats (read-only) and optimize_table (broader maintenance).

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 the use case (refresh index statistics) and notes a brief read lock and no undo, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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