appwrite_list_indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only implies read-only safety through the word 'List'. It fails to disclose pagination behavior, return structure, or whether results include composite/index type metadata.

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?

Single sentence format is appropriately brief, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise rather than useful description content that 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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits expected return value structure, parameter relationships (e.g., collection_id dependency on database_id), and error conditions.

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 has 0% description coverage (site, database_id, collection_id, queries lack descriptions), and the tool description compensates with zero parameter guidance. Critical context like 'site' referring to Appwrite instance/project, or 'queries' syntax for filtering indexes, is completely absent.

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?

States specific verb 'List' and resource 'indexes of a collection', which clearly identifies the operation. However, lacks scope details (e.g., whether it includes system indexes) that would distinguish it perfectly from sibling operations like create_index or delete_index.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., appwrite_get_collection which might also return index info), nor prerequisites like needing existing database/collection IDs. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no value.

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