tableStats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the engine/privilege dependency, which is useful context about what stats may be available. It doesn't disclose performance or error behavior, but that's less critical given the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is given in a separate clause. Every part serves a purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key caveat. It lacks explicit parameter guidance, but the schema and output schema fill in the rest. It is adequate for a well-scoped tool, though a bit more on parameter semantics would make it fully complete.

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 schema has only 33% description coverage (only connection is described). The description does not elaborate on 'table', 'schema', or 'connection' beyond what their names imply. It mentions 'one known table' but doesn't explain required vs optional parameters or how to specify schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter meaning thin.

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 it inspects operational size and activity statistics for a known table, listing specific metrics (rows, storage, dead tuples, maintenance, scans). It differentiates from describeTable by noting that tool covers fields/keys/constraints, so a clear purpose and distinction from siblings is provided.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative for a different task ('For fields, keys and constraints, use describeTable'), which helps route the agent. It also cautions that stats depend on engine/privileges, implying context-dependent behavior. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other stats tools like indexStats or columnStats, but the primary guidance is present.

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