get_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') and does not mention side effects, permissions, output format, or any caveats. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name, though it does clarify the table scope.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Perfectly concise for its minimal content.

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 has four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't indicate what the returned index information includes, whether it's a list or detail, or any formatting. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks operational context that an agent would need to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 provides 100% parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying a table is needed, which is already in the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('index information') with a scope ('for a table'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_foreign_keys or get_constraints. It is not a tautology and adds mild specificity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_index_usage or get_missing_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.

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