database_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the types of statistics but does not indicate if the tool is read-only, whether it is expensive to run on large databases, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Database statistics'). However, it sacrifices some clarity for brevity, leaving the parameter and usage details absent.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret the metrics (e.g., units, time period for growth), or how the parameter influences results. A more complete description would include these details.

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 single parameter 'top_n' (default 10) is not described in the tool description. Although the name suggests limiting the number of rows, the description does not confirm this or specify what it limits (e.g., top N tables by size). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 specifies it provides database statistics such as table sizes, row counts, and growth metrics. This clearly indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from related tools that focus on columns (column_stats) or individual table metadata (table_info). However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., all tables or selected).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like table_info or column_stats. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when to avoid use. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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