ecp_postgres_database_sizes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the read operation but does not describe the output format, units, whether all databases are included, or any permission requirements, leaving the agent to guess at returned data.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource clearly. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool the description is minimally viable, but because there is no output schema, it should disclose at least the expected return shape or units. The current text leaves the agent uncertain whether sizes are in bytes, megabytes, or a human-readable format.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. With an empty input schema, there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('size of each Postgres database'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools like ecp_postgres_list_databases and ecp_postgres_table_sizes by specifying 'size' and 'each Postgres database.'

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_postgres_table_sizes or ecp_mysql_database_sizes. While the name and scope imply a simple read-only database-size listing, no when/when-not context is provided.

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