analyze_query_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 of disclosing behavior. It states the core action ('Recommend indexes') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. It also fails to disclose how the result will be presented or any constraints beyond the query count. This is a minimal disclosure with significant gaps.

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 behavior: 'Recommend indexes for up to 10 specific queries.' Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information or repetition of schema fields.

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 that there is no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain what the recommended indexes will look like, how results are returned, or the role of the max_index_size_mb parameter. The tool's complexity is moderate, but this minimal description leaves too many details unaddressed.

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 only 33% (only 'db' has a description). The tool description does not mention any of the parameters (queries, max_index_size_mb) or provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it remains completely silent on parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Recommend indexes for up to 10 specific queries.' It uses a specific verb ('Recommend'), a resource ('indexes'), and a scope ('for up to 10 specific queries'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_workload_indexes, which targets broader workloads.

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 by specifying 'for up to 10 specific queries,' which suggests this tool is for analyzing a bounded set of user-provided queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_workload_indexes, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The hint of scope provides only implied guidance.

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