ecp_mssql_table_sizes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-like intent with 'Get', but it does not describe output format, units, ordering, whether table names are included, or any side effects/safety guarantees.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and scope are front-loaded and immediately readable.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple one-parameter tool, but it lacks output details such as units, ordering, or whether each table's name accompanies its size. With no output schema or annotations, those omissions leave the agent with only partial context.

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 only defines db_name as a string with no description, and the description does not elaborate on this parameter. The agent can infer that db_name refers to the target MSSQL database, but no additional guidance is given about valid values, required database existence, or format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: getting the size of each table in a MSSQL database. It is clearly distinguishable from related siblings like ecp_mssql_database_sizes by the 'each table' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_mssql_database_sizes or the equivalent table-size tools for other database engines. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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