Get Heavy Log Tables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Does NOT truncate tables', which adds clarity about its non-destructive nature beyond the generic annotations. It also frames it as a planning aid, indicating no side effects.

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?

A single sentence that conveys purpose, safety, and use context without any fluff. The information is front-loaded and complete.

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 an output schema (not shown) so return values need not be described. The description covers what the tool does, its non-destructive nature, and its intended use. It doesn't list which specific tables are 'common', but that's not essential for calling it. Given the annotations and schema, the description is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, both 'profile' and 'magentoRoot' are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool 'returns sizes of common Magento log/visitor tables' and clarifies it is a 'planning aid for DB maintenance'. It is specific about the resource (log/visitor tables) and the action (returns sizes), distinguishing it from siblings like get_largest_tables which target all tables.

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 frames the tool as a 'planning aid for DB maintenance', implying it is for read-only analysis before cleanup. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear. Lacks exclusions but provides a clear use case.

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