table_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by referencing information_schema, but fails to mention any behavioral traits like query cost, permissions required, or whether results are cached. The agent learns the source but not the operational implications.

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 short sentence, which is concise but not enough. It front-loads the core action, yet it could include more structured information without becoming verbose. It earns a middle score for being succinct but underdeveloped.

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?

Considering three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools (e.g., count, describe_table), the description fails to be complete. It omits output format, whether both size and rows are returned, and how results are ordered. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 67% (database and connection have descriptions; table does not). The description adds no parameter-specific details—it does not clarify what 'table' expects (e.g., fully qualified name) or how the optional parameters affect the result. Baseline is 3 given coverage, but lack of compensation lowers the score.

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 provides table size and row estimates from information_schema. It identifies the specific verb and resource ('get table stats') but does not differentiate from sibling tools like describe_table or count that might also provide row estimates.

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 such as 'count', 'describe_table', or 'analyze_query'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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