Inspect projections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: no pagination, all projection-column catalog rows returned, and a semantic caveat that isUnique reflects key-constraint status rather than a uniqueness proof. This is material context for interpreting results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior and the isUnique caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is explicit routing against get_table_structure, which would help an agent pick the right inspection 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 coverage is 100%, with tableName and schemaName fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds scope ('one table') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: inspect one table's Vertica projections and column sort positions. The name 'list_indexes' is clarified by the description's projection framing. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_table_structure or list_views.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one table's Vertica projections', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative such as get_table_structure. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling list.

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