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 only restates parameter usage and does not disclose what statistics are returned, potential performance costs, permission requirements, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no transparency beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. However, the parameter descriptions largely duplicate the schema, so some content is redundant and not earning its place.

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 simple stats retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the required parameters and basic usage, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives and any transparency about behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate but acceptable level of completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially repeats the schema descriptions without adding new meaning. It includes some guidance about fully qualified names and separate catalog/schema, but this is already present in the schema parameter description.

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 retrieves statistics for a table, naming the specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like describe_table or show_create_table, though 'statistics' implies a distinct purpose.

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 provides guidance on how to pass parameters (prefer separate catalog/schema, fully qualified names accepted), which is a form of usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like describe_table or when not to use it.

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