mcp_get_column_stats

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. While 'Get comprehensive statistics' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what 'comprehensive' entails (e.g., statistical measures included), performance characteristics, or potential limitations like row count restrictions. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear purpose, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations and sibling tool differentiation.

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?

For a statistical analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' includes (mean, median, distribution, null counts, etc.), doesn't mention performance considerations for large tables, and provides no guidance on how this tool fits within the broader analytical toolkit represented by sibling tools.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Get comprehensive statistics') and target ('for a specific column in a table'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mcp_table_analysis or mcp_quick_data_analysis, which might offer overlapping functionality.

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. With siblings like mcp_table_analysis, mcp_quick_data_analysis, and mcp_preview_data that might offer related analytical functions, there's no indication of when this column-specific statistics tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from broader analysis tools.

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