get_table_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions 'quick statistics' and hints at speed for estimation. It does not state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and leaves gaps.

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 states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has four parameters (three required) and no output schema. The description covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details (e.g., performance, accuracy, side effects). Given the complexity and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete for comprehensive understanding.

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%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (datasource_name, database, table, schema). It does not explain what each parameter represents or how to use them. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 retrieves quick statistics (row count, column count, size). The verb 'Get' and resource 'statistics' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_table_schema or get_sample_data, the context of 'quick statistics' implies a lightweight summary, distinguishing it from structural or sample data tools.

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 explicitly provides a use case: 'For sanity check before reconciliation, to estimate how long checks might take.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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