get_table_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'queries' index information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the function description, followed by parameter details. It uses a structured format with bullet points, making it easy to parse, though the bracketed headings add minor verbosity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without additional context.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: it specifies that table_name is required for querying and db_name is optional with a default to the current database. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing clear parameter roles and defaults beyond the basic schema.

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's purpose as 'Get index information for the specified table,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_table_schema or get_table_column_comments, which might retrieve related but different metadata.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like get_table_schema or explain what makes this tool unique for index information, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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