get_missing_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states the data source (DMVs), which implies a read-only query, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, explain any performance impact, or disclose what exactly is returned. Without annotations, this is a significant gap for an operation that might be expected to be safe.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is easily scannable. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage hints without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, limitations, or usage scenarios. It simply states what it does without mentioning that it is SQL Server-specific, what fields are returned, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, though the simplicity slightly mitigates the impact.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (server and database) are already documented with descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter context, but the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional value is provided.

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 retrieves missing index suggestions from SQL Server DMVs, with a specific source (sys.dm_db_missing_index_details). It distinguishes from siblings like get_indexes by focusing on missing indexes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource are specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_indexes or other diagnostic tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires SQL Server, connection setup) or scenarios where it is appropriate. The description offers no context for selection.

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