table_fragmentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides the return envelope structure, explains the 'truncated' flag, and notes that data_free represents reclaimable space for OPTIMIZE TABLE. The [READ] prefix signals read-only intent, but permissions are not addressed.

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 well-structured with a summary line, Args section, and Returns section. It front-loads the core purpose and includes important behavioral notes about the envelope and truncation behavior. It is longer than two sentences, but each part contributes necessary 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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return envelope and the meaning of 'truncated'. It covers parameters and the operation's goal. A minor gap is the exact structure of entries within 'tables', but overall it is sufficient for a diagnostic 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%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'limit' as 'Number of tables to inspect (default 50)' and 'target' as 'Target name from config; omit for the default,' adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types. The description of 'target' could be slightly more detailed, but it is functional.

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?

[READ] data_free per table (space OPTIMIZE TABLE could reclaim), worst first.' clearly identifies the tool's resource and metric. It is specific and informative, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'fragmentation_analysis', which might serve a similar diagnostic purpose.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While it includes a useful note about the 'truncated' field and re-running with a higher limit, that is about result interpretation rather than tool selection.

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