relationships_list_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the special `schema_name='all'` behavior, which is a useful scoping detail. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential edge cases like empty results or system indexes. Still, the behavior is simple and not misleading.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

For a simple list tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the key special case. The main gap is the lack of explicit mention of `table_name` filtering, but the output schema and schema defaults fill in some details. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `schema_name` by documenting the special value 'all', but it does not explain `table_name` or clarify the interaction between the two parameters. The parenthetical '(table, index, columns)' hints at output fields rather than parameter semantics, providing only partial compensation.

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 action ('List indexes') and the resource ('indexes'), with the parenthetical '(table, index, columns)' specifying the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like relationships_list_foreign_keys, which target foreign keys instead.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint, `schema_name='all' for all schemas`, is a parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance, so the description lacks explicit usage context.

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