index_bloat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag adds no credit. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are a 'coarse' estimate and 'all inputs returned for transparency', telling the agent not to treat the numbers as exact.

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 core purpose leads, followed by a compact Args block; each sentence and line carries information. Minor redundancy in labeling a read-only tool with '[READ]' when the annotation already says so.

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 two-parameter read-only tool the parameter documentation is adequate, but with no output schema the description should sketch what a 'coarse estimate' returns (fields, units, whether bloat is a ratio or bytes) and what a 'target' refers to in config. These gaps leave the agent guessing about result interpretation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: 'limit' is documented as the number of indexes to inspect, ordered largest first, with default 50, and 'target' is explained as a config name that can be omitted. The ordering semantics ('largest first') are meaning the schema does not convey.

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 names a specific resource (index bloat) and scope ('coarse ... estimate'), which separates it from the sibling table_bloat and the heavier bloat_and_vacuum_analysis. It is clear about what it returns at a high level, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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 word 'coarse' implies this is a quick screening call rather than the deeper bloat_and_vacuum_analysis, so usage is implied but never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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