gather_hg_table_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the command execution and purpose but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation (ANALYZE TABLE can be resource-intensive), required permissions, execution time, or impact on database performance. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a database statistics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but omits behavioral aspects (e.g., execution characteristics, side effects) and output details. For a tool that likely affects query performance, more context on usage and results is needed for effective agent operation.

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 100%, with both parameters (schema and table) well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are used for the ANALYZE TABLE command. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high, as the schema adequately explains the parameters.

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 states the action ('Execute the ANALYZE TABLE command') and the resource ('Hologres collect table statistics'), with a specific purpose ('enabling QO to generate better query plans'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_hg_tables_in_a_schema or show_hg_table_ddl by focusing on statistics collection rather than listing or showing DDL. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from execute_hg_ddl_sql, which could potentially run similar commands.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after data changes), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time tables), or compare to siblings like execute_hg_ddl_sql for similar SQL execution. Usage is implied through the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.

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