get_table_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 but only states the basic search function. It fails to clarify whether the operation is read-only, what specific index metadata is returned, or whether the search supports wildcards/patterns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key action. The bilingual format (Chinese with English parenthetical) is slightly verbose but acceptable for clarity. No sentences are wasted.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., list of index names vs. detailed metadata) or clarifying search pattern support given the 'multi-table' capability claim.

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?

With 100% schema coverage (single parameter 'text' described as 'table name to search'), the baseline is met. The description adds value by mentioning 'multi-table query' support, hinting that the text parameter may accept multiple table identifiers, though it does not specify the format (e.g., comma-separated).

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 searches for table indexes based on table names and explicitly mentions multi-table query support. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_table_desc' or 'execute_sql' which could potentially retrieve similar information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'execute_sql' (which could query indexes directly) or 'get_table_desc' (which might also return index information). There are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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