MCP Trino Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, the description omits what specific statistics are computed, whether the operation is expensive or cached, and what the output schema contains.

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 extremely concise at four words and is front-loaded with the action verb. However, it is arguably under-specified given the tool's context among numerous sibling inspection tools.

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?

Despite having a well-documented input schema and an output schema, the description is insufficient for tool selection among the many 'show_' siblings. It lacks critical context about the nature of the statistics and when this tool is preferable to 'describe_table' or 'show_files'.

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 all three parameters (catalog, schema_name, table). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented schemas.

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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('statistics for a table'), but it lacks specificity regarding what statistics are returned (e.g., row counts, file sizes, column distributions) and fails to differentiate from similar inspection siblings like 'describe_table' or 'show_table_properties'.

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 'describe_table' (schema inspection) or 'show_files' (file-level details), nor does it mention prerequisites like table existence or required permissions.

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