supabase_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. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what index types are returned (PKs, unique constraints, custom indexes), but fails to disclose operational traits like read-only safety, error handling for missing tables, or return structure.

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 sentence with minimal waste, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix at the beginning is unnecessary cruft that reduces information density slightly. The core content is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It conceptually describes the returned data but fails to document parameters or return structure, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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%, requiring the description to compensate by explaining the 'site', 'table', and 'schema' parameters. While 'table' is mentioned in the text, 'site' (likely project reference) and 'schema' (Postgres schema context) remain undocumented, leaving critical parameters unexplained.

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 retrieves indexes for a table and specifically enumerates the types included (primary keys, unique constraints, custom indexes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `supabase_get_table_schema` or `supabase_get_table_constraints`. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without clarifying purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `supabase_get_table_constraints` or `supabase_get_table_schema`, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or existing table existence.

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