get_database_size_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only analysis tool (implied by 'retrieve', 'analyze', 'provide' and prohibited deletion/configuration cases). It describes the return format (table-format information sorted by size) and scope (all databases in PostgreSQL server). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance impact on large servers or authentication requirements.

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 uses clear section headers ([Tool Purpose], [Exact Functionality], etc.) which provides good structure. However, some sections are redundant (the 'Returns' section largely repeats what's in 'Exact Functionality'). The description could be more concise by eliminating repetition while maintaining the valuable usage guidance.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description provides good context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and what it doesn't do. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return value structure. For a read-only analysis tool with no parameters, this description covers the essential context well.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It focuses instead on what the tool does with its zero-parameter interface, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as analyzing size information and storage usage status of all databases in PostgreSQL server. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_database_list (which lists databases without size info) and get_table_size_info (which focuses on tables rather than databases). The description uses specific verbs like 'retrieve', 'analyze', and 'provide' with clear resources (disk usage, storage usage, database list).

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 explicit guidance with 'Required Use Cases' section listing specific scenarios (user requests for database size, capacity management, resource usage identification) and 'Strictly Prohibited Use Cases' section clearly stating what this tool should NOT be used for (deletion, configuration changes, backup/restore). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, distinguishing it from potential alternatives.

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