get_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or what the returned index information will contain. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 efficient sentence with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified—'index information' is vague enough that a brief clarification of the output would make it more appropriately sized.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields, so the baseline requirement is fairly low. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally clarify what 'index information' includes; the current phrasing is adequate but leaves return-value details to inference.

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 connection and table. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'table' in prose but does not clarify formats, defaults, or relationships between parameters.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('index information for a table'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_schema or get_stored_procedure. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 alternatives such as query or get_schema. No context is given about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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