get_table_size

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds a valuable behavioral caveat that values are -1 until COMPUTE STATS has been run. This goes beyond structured annotations and gives the agent important context for interpreting results.

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 two terse sentences with no filler. The core output is stated first, followed by a crucial caveat about COMPUTE STATS, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 (two string parameters) and has an output schema, so the description covers the key return values and the -1 caveat. However, it omits any usage context or parameter-level detail, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 0% and the description does not explain db_name or table_name at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description still fails to add any semantic meaning or relationship between the parameters and the statistics being fetched.

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 identifies the tool as returning physical table statistics (row count, file count, total bytes) and cites the underlying command SHOW TABLE STATS. This unambiguously distinguishes it from schema/comment/preview tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_schema or get_table_preview. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving usage context implicit.

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