ecp_postgres_table_sizes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Get size' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, the description does not disclose any performance implications, permissions prerequisites, or whether the result includes every schema or only specific tables. It conveys the basic behavior but leaves substantial gaps.

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 clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is functional but incomplete. It doesn't mention what the returned data looks like (e.g., units, whether indexes are included), nor whether it covers all schemas or just the default public schema. An agent could plan the call but might be surprised by the output shape.

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 0%, and the description must compensate. It implicitly identifies db_name as the Postgres database whose tables are queried, adding the engine context that the raw property name lacks. However, it does not explain exactly what db_name expects (e.g., database name, must exist) or format constraints. The minimal context is enough to map the single parameter.

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 and resource: 'Get size of each table in a Postgres database.' It clearly identifies the database engine (Postgres) and the object (each table), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecp_postgres_database_sizes or ecp_mysql_table_sizes. No ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this tool should be used when per-table size is needed as opposed to database-level size, nor does it reference alternatives like ecp_postgres_database_sizes. The intent is only inferred from the description.

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