analyze_table

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it generates statistics but not whether the operation is read-only, whether it locks or scans the table, how expensive it is, or what form the statistics take — all material for a table-analysis tool on a possibly large table.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification handled in other dimensions.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least say what statistics are produced and which parameters scope them. Against a dense sibling list containing analyze_indexes and get_table_info, one line is not enough to place the tool confidently.

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 tableName, databaseName, and connectionName each documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g., whether databaseName is optional or how connectionName is resolved), so the 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 single sentence states a specific verb ("Analisa") and resource ("uma tabela") plus the outcome ("gera estatísticas"), which is understandable regardless of language. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as analyze_indexes or get_table_info, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like analyze_indexes, get_table_info, or check_database_health. No preconditions, no mention of cost or when the analysis is worthwhile are provided.

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