unused_indexes

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

The [READ] annotation indicates no side effects, and 'zero scans' clarifies the selection criteria. However, with no annotations provided, the description lacks details on potential costs, permissions needed, or whether results are live or historical.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and [READ] tag. The Args section is clearly structured. Every sentence adds value, though the overall brevity is appropriate.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description explains inputs and purpose but does not describe return format, pagination, or result details. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps for the agent.

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 description adds useful context beyond the schema for both parameters: 'target' is explained as a config name, and 'min_size_bytes' filters by size with a default. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage reported, though the coverage seems accurate.

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 the tool reports non-unique, non-primary indexes with zero scans, suggesting drop candidates. The [READ] tag and resource specification distinguish it from sibling tools like missing_index_hints or index_bloat, though the verb is implicit.

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 phrase 'drop candidates' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many index-related siblings. The context is implied rather than stated.

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