missing_index_hints

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

The description labels the tool as '[READ]' indicating no destructive action, but no annotations exist. It lacks details on potential performance impact or queries against system catalogs. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond safety.

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 with a single-line purpose and a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read operation, 3 parameters) and absence of output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it could mention the output format or potential caveats.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters ('min_seq_scan', 'min_live_tup', 'target') with meaningful context, such as minimum sequential scans (default 1000) and live tuples (default 10000), fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Tables with heavy sequential scans and few index scans (index hints)', specifying the verb 'read' and the resource 'tables'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unused_indexes' which focus on existing indexes.

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 implies use for finding missing indexes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'unused_indexes' or 'index_bloat'. No exclusions or contextual guidance provided.

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