mcp_table_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'comprehensive analysis' and lists components, it doesn't describe what the analysis actually returns, whether it's a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 packs substantial information about what the tool analyzes. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the key information about being a comprehensive SQL Server table analysis.

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 table analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It lists what components are analyzed but doesn't describe the return format, depth of analysis, or how results are structured. Given the complexity implied by 'comprehensive' analysis and lack of structured output documentation, there are significant gaps in completeness.

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 the single parameter 'table_name' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Comprehensive SQL Server table analysis including structure, columns, keys, indexes, and constraints' - it specifies the verb ('analysis') and resource ('SQL Server table') with specific components analyzed. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mcp_get_column_stats or mcp_sp_structure, which appear related to table analysis.

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 multiple sibling tools that appear related to table analysis (mcp_get_column_stats, mcp_get_dependencies, mcp_sp_structure), there's no indication of when this comprehensive analysis is preferred over more specific tools or what distinguishes its scope from them.

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