pgroonga_list_indexes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. The verb "List" strongly implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, and "catalog-resolved" adds context about how the indexes are obtained. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation may be expensive. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but is not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the nature of the results. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema to describe return values, and the core purpose is stated. However, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance means the description is not fully self-contained, especially because the optional table and schema filters are completely unexplained. Given the low schema coverage, more context is needed to be fully complete.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two optional parameters (table, schema), and the description does not explain how these parameters affect the listing. Neither the schema nor the description provides meaning beyond the parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, offering no guidance on filtering or optionality.

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 a clear resource ("catalog-resolved PGroonga indexes"), and also mentions the additional output of "supported search modes." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pgroonga_search, pgroonga_server_info, and pgroonga_list_normalization_profiles, which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used when you need to see available PGroonga indexes and their search modes, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the verb and object, but no direct comparison to siblings is offered.

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