invalid_indexes

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

The description includes '[READ]' to indicate read-only behavior, and specifies the output includes invalid and duplicate indexes. However, without annotations, it lacks details on permissions, performance impact, or response format, providing only basic transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single line for the purpose and a brief parameter note. Everything is front-loaded and essential, with no wasted 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 description is minimal given the tool's purpose. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret duplicates or failed builds, or provide any caveats. With no output schema and many sibling tools, more context is needed for proper selection.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for the target parameter: 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' This clarifies its purpose and optionality, compensating for the schema's lack of 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 it retrieves 'Invalid indexes (failed CONCURRENTLY builds) and duplicate indexes,' specifying the exact resource and type of information. The '[READ]' prefix reinforces it as a read operation, distinguishing it from mutation or advisory siblings like create_index and missing_index_hints.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unused_indexes or index_bloat. It does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or when to avoid this tool, leaving the agent to infer context.

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