analyze_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes the output (unused indexes, missing indexes, unindexed foreign keys) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, resource-intensive, or requires specific permissions. The verb 'analyze' implies no modification, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the core value proposition. Every sentence adds distinct information about what the tool finds (unused indexes, missing indexes, unindexed foreign keys). No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a clear overview of the tool's outcomes (unused and missing indexes, unindexed foreign keys). It does not explain the return format or any side effects, but the information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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?

All three parameters (schema, mode, timeout_ms) have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage tips beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: analyzing index usage statistics to find unused indexes, missing indexes, and unindexed foreign keys. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_connections or analyze_slow_queries.

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 (e.g., suggest_missing_indexes). The description does not mention when-not to use it or any prerequisites. Users must infer usage context solely from the tool's name.

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