table_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly says 'estimates' for live/dead tuples, which is a useful caveat, and the metrics list clarifies what the tool returns. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the operation is read-only, or any cost/performance considerations.

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 compact phrase with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description names the key metrics and is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks usage context and does not explain parameter formats, leaving an agent with only partial guidance for selecting and calling the tool confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The word 'Table' in the description gestures at the table parameter, but it adds no meaning about table qualification, naming format, or how the schema parameter interacts, beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 resource (table) and the specific metrics returned: disk size, index size, and live/dead tuple estimates. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tables or describe_table, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_table, list_indexes, or explain_query. The intended use is implied by the name and metrics, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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