suggest_missing_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides recommendations but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only (no side effects), mention any performance impact, or indicate required permissions. This leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and output. Information is front-loaded with the key action ('Find tables...') followed by the output type. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably indicates the tool returns actionable SQL recommendations. However, it does not detail the format (e.g., list of strings, structured objects). Slight improvement could specify output structure, but overall adequate for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described ('schema' default public, 'timeout_ms' default 30000 with hint). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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: identifying tables with high sequential scans and zero index usage, cross-referenced with unused indexes, and providing CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_indexes which likely 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 usage context (analyzing missing and unused indexes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_indexes or analyze_slow_queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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