get-table-indexes

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 does convey expected return content (ordered columns, uniqueness, direction, segment count), which is useful, but it does not disclose failure modes for nonexistent tables, permission requirements, or whether the operation is guaranteed side-effect-free beyond the implication of "Returns".

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded immediately after the tool name, followed by the specific details of the returned content. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter metadata getter, the description covers what the tool does and what the result contains, and the schema fully documents the parameter. However, it leaves gaps in usage context and error behavior, which an agent navigating a large sibling set would benefit from.

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 100% — tableName already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that indexes belong to a table, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the load.

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?

"Returns all indexes for a table" states a specific verb and resource, and the listing of included content (ordered columns, uniqueness, direction, segment count) makes the scope concrete. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get-table-constraints, get-table-triggers, and describe-table without needing to name them.

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. With many overlapping siblings (describe-table, get-table-constraints, get-table-triggers, analyze-table-statistics), an agent receives no hint about which tool fits which question, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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