hana_describe_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool describes index structure but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's complexity (describing database index structure) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or what information is returned, leaving the agent with inadequate guidance for effective tool invocation in a database management scenario.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (schema_name, table_name, index_name) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 with a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('structure of a specific index'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hana_describe_table' or 'hana_list_indexes', which would require mentioning it focuses on detailed structural metadata rather than listing or describing tables.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'hana_list_indexes' for listing indexes or 'hana_describe_table' for table details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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