Tune vector index

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description confirms by stating it reads live row count and dimension. It also discloses that it returns parameters and a CREATE INDEX statement, implying no side effects. This adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the tool's inputs (row count, dimension) and outputs (parameters, CREATE INDEX). It could mention the vector extension name explicitly, but overall it is adequately complete for a recommendation tool.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of metric or index_type, nor how they affect the recommendation. It only implicitly references schema, table, and column by mentioning row count and dimension.

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 it recommends an ivfflat or hnsw configuration for a pgvector column, specifying the resource (pgvector column) and action (recommend configuration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recommend_ivfflat_probes and recommend_hnsw_ef_search by focusing on full index configuration.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires the vector extension) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when configuring a new index, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling recommendation tools.

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