list_datafile_io

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 discloses the returned metrics but says nothing about the operation being read-only, which datafiles are covered (whole DB vs. tablespace subset), or permission requirements.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the relevant columns with no filler. Every clause earns 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably tells the agent what comes back. The main gap is scope – it doesn't state whether IO stats cover all datafiles or a filtered subset.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's field listing is a bonus rather than a substitute for schema detail.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (datafiles) and enumerates the metrics returned (size, physical/block reads and writes, average IO time). This is clearly distinct from sibling stat tools like get_system_stats or get_table_stats, though it never names those alternatives.

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 related tools such as get_table_stats, get_system_stats, or list_top_sql. No prerequisites or scope conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context on its own.

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