get_index

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what 'full detail' includes, whether it may fail for missing references, or what the return shape will be.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is not overly verbose, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitted context.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide more context about how the parameters fit together. 'Full detail' is vague, and an agent is left without enough information about what qualifies as full detail or what the response will look like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the three required parameters. It only mentions 'index' and does not explain how model_id, table_ref, and index_ref relate to each other or how to construct them for a valid call.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('index'), and the scope ('one index's full detail'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indexes and from create/update/delete operations. Even though it is terse, it leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_indexes, get_table, or get_key. It does not state that this is the tool to use when you need the complete detail of a single index, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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