table_sizes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it effectively discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]' and the truncation behavior with specific instructions to re-run with a higher limit. This is valuable context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention permissions or exact source of sizes, but the transparency is strong.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 low complexity (two optional parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return envelope, the 'truncated' flag, and how to handle pagination, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains both parameters: 'limit' specifies count and ordering, and 'target' is clarified as a config name with a default. This compensates completely for the absence of 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 clearly states the tool returns the largest tables by data and index size, which is a specific resource and scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like table_fragmentation or index_stats, so it doesn't fully meet the top criteria.

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 intended usage is implied by the purpose: use this tool to see the largest tables by size. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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