redundant_indexes

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 includes a '[READ]' prefix indicating a non-destructive operation and states what the tool identifies. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, performance costs, or output format, though for a read-only diagnostic this is partially mitigated.

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 concise and front-loaded with the [READ] tag. It gives a one-sentence definition of the output and a minimal parameter explanation with no unnecessary words.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it returns (redundant indexes) and how to use the parameter, which is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention whether results include table names or DDL statements, but that is not critical.

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 input schema for 'target' gives no description beyond type and default. The tool description compensates by explaining that target is a config name and is optional, adding meaningful context. With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 defines the tool's purpose: it identifies indexes whose columns are a leading prefix of another index (duplicates). This distinguishes it from siblings like unused_indexes or index_stats. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'find', so it is clear but not perfectly formatted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unused_indexes or index_stats. It only explains the target parameter, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases.

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