get_table_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output fields, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't state side effects, permissions, or performance implications. Given the simplicity of the tool, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately lists the specific statistics returned. There is zero redundant or vague language, making it concise and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return values (row count, total size, index size, fragmentation). Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool with confidence, though it lacks nuances like whether the statistics are current or cached.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., formats, defaults, or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table statistics') and lists the exact statistics returned (row count, total size, index size, fragmentation). This distinguishes it from vague tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_space_usage' or 'get_index_usage' that overlap in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where a different stats tool would be more appropriate, nor any prerequisites or limitations. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing selection.

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