databases_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 the action ('List') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, what the output format looks like, or if queries support pagination. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List indexes'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a listing operation with querying capabilities and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'index' is in this context, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or error conditions. With no annotations and an output schema missing, the description should provide more context to help the agent use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('indexes in the collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'databases_get_index' (which retrieves a single index) and 'databases_delete_index' (which removes an index). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the database context, which is implied but could be more specific.

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 prerequisites (like needing an existing database and collection), nor does it differentiate from similar listing tools like 'databases_list_attributes' or 'databases_list_documents'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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