list_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 states that indexes are listed, but does not clarify whether all schemas are included, what information is returned for each index, whether the operation is purely read-only, or how the optional filter behaves. The behavior is largely implied rather than explicitly disclosed.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the optional filter. There is no wasted text, though it could have been more informative without becoming overly verbose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not describe the output format or clarify potential ambiguities like scope (all schemas, current schema, etc.), which leaves some gaps for an agent deciding whether the returned data matches its needs.

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%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'table' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely restating the optional filter concept without introducing new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexes in the database'), with an optional filter. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_tables, describe_table, or index_usage, so an agent can easily understand its scope.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as index_usage, describe_table, or foreign_keys. The optional table filter is mentioned, but there is no context explaining when this tool is the right choice or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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