CockroachDB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool's purpose and benefits, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it locks the table during creation, potential performance impact during index building, or whether indexes are automatically used by queries. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The first sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality, and the Args/Returns sections are well-structured. While slightly longer than minimal, every section adds value given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It documents all parameters and the general purpose, but lacks details about behavioral implications, error conditions, performance characteristics, and relationship to sibling tools. For a database mutation tool, more context about side effects and constraints would be beneficial.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing a parameter section that explains all three parameters: 'table_name', 'index_name', and 'columns'. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by specifying that columns is a 'List of column names to include in the index' and clarifying the purpose of each parameter. However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 specific action ('Create a new index'), target resource ('on a specified table'), and primary benefit ('to improve query performance'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_table' or 'drop_index' by focusing on index creation for performance optimization rather than table/view operations or index removal.

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 implies usage context ('for read-heavy workloads') and mentions the purpose ('faster data retrieval and optimized execution plans'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_performance' or 'explain_query' for performance tuning. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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