table_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job by explicitly marking the operation as '[READ]', explaining the non-InnoDB flag's significance, and detailing the return envelope including the 'truncated' boolean and the instruction to re-run with a higher limit. This goes well beyond basic parameter listings.

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 separate sections for the operation, additional context, arguments, and return format. It is concise, each sentence adds value, and the essential information is front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the core purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents the return envelope and truncation behavior, making the tool's behavior predictable. All parameters are explained, and the read-only nature is disclosed. This is complete for a status inspection tool with two optional parameters.

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 provides only types and defaults for limit and target with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that limit is the number of tables to inspect (default 50) and target is the config target name (default null), giving the agent the necessary semantic context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 begins with '[READ]' and clearly states the tool returns per-table engine, row format, row estimate, and last update time. This specific resource and attribute set distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_sizes or fragmentation_analysis, which cover different table properties.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect table engine/row format and identify non-InnoDB tables), and it explains the limit/truncation behavior so users know to increase limit when truncated. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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