get_table_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the row count is 'estimated (from pg_stat)', which is a key behavioral caveat. It also enumerates all returned statistics, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a stats tool this is reasonably transparent.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and lists all key output items, earning every word with no repetition or filler.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the return values and the estimated nature of the row count. It could mention behavior for missing tables, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% (table_name is documented as 'Name of the table'), and the description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond that. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema is sufficient.

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: getting statistics for a table, listing specific stats (row count, tuples, vacuum/analyze times, disk size). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics for a table'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table.

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 context is clear: use when you need table statistics such as row counts, vacuum times, or disk size. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is obvious given the sibling tools, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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