db-stats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the phrase 'use state' but does not specify what statistics are included, error handling, or behavior if the database does not exist. It provides minimal additional context beyond what the annotations imply, but it is consistent and not misleading.

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 immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no filler or redundancy. The length is appropriate for a tool with one parameter and no complex behavior.

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 simple read-only stats tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It clearly indicates the resource and action, and the output schema handles return value details. However, the vague term 'use state' leaves some ambiguity about what statistics are included, but this is a minor gap given the output schema and annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'database' parameter, with the description 'Database name'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or examples for the parameter, so the schema already carries the full semantic load. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra value.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning statistics about a specific database, using the verb 'returns' and a clear resource. It distinguishes this from the siblings list, which includes database-level management operations like drop-database and list-databases. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on what 'use state' includes, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-databases or collection-storage-size. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is that it is for retrieving statistics for one database, but no explicit context or alternative comparison is given.

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