get_indexes

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers the safety profile, and the word 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as return format, execution impact, or authentication needs. Since annotations already declare the read-only nature, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and resource. However, it is arguably too terse, leaving some context to the schema and annotations, but it is not verbose or structurally flawed.

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?

With no output schema, the description could clarify what 'index information' includes (e.g., names, types, columns). It also does not mention any constraints like table existence or connection requirements. For a simple read-only tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves several details implicit.

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 both parameters ('table' and 'connection'). The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, required values, or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('index information for a table'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from siblings like get_schema or get_execution_plan, which could also relate to table metadata. The scope is understandable but not explicitly distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for use. An agent selecting from the sibling list would have to infer when get_indexes is the appropriate choice.

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