eksik_indexler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Salt-okunur, index OLUSTURMAZ, yalniz onerir'), which is crucial behavioral info. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient.

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 very concise: a single sentence stating the tool's purpose, sorting, and fields, followed by a key behavioral note about read-only. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (veritabani, tablo, kullanim, etki skoru, esitlik/esitsizlik/dahil kolonlar) and stating the sort order. It lacks details like data types or pagination, but for a simple list tool, it is nearly 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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, zero params sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly omits any param info.

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 identifies the tool as listing missing indexes recommended by SQL Server, sorted by impact score, and explicitly states it is read-only and does not create indexes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aktif_sorgular_blocking' and 'sunucu_sagligi' by focusing on index recommendations.

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 provides minimal usage context ('Performans icin' - for performance) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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