Find unused objects

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context such as excluding PK/unique indexes, returning stats vs. verdict, and the need for mature stats. No contradictions.

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 efficient and well-structured, front-loading purpose and then providing details. It could be slightly more scannable, but no wasted sentences.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately explains return structure (tables and indexes with stats). It covers exclusions, usage context, and false positives, making it complete for an agent.

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 coverage is 50%; the 'database' parameter has a helpful description. The 'schema' parameter lacks description, but the tool's purpose implies it scans a schema. The description partially compensates by outlining returned fields.

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 finds tables and indexes with zero scans since pg_stat reset, explicitly distinguishing it from being a verdict. It specifies what it returns and excludes primary key/unique indexes, providing a unique purpose among siblings.

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 advises running after a meaningful period to avoid false positives, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like recommend_index_drops.

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