hana_get_row_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of M_TABLE_STATISTICS instead of COUNT(*), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential performance implications, whether counts are approximate, or any required permissions.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. No extraneous information.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral aspect. It could mention limitations of M_TABLE_STATISTICS (e.g., potential staleness), but overall it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions of both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 it returns row counts for one or multiple tables. It distinguishes itself from COUNT(*) by mentioning the use of M_TABLE_STATISTICS, setting it apart from general query tools like hana_execute_query.

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 implies use for monitoring with 'rápido para monitorización' and contrasts with COUNT(*), providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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