foreign_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It says 'monitor' and 'identify', suggesting read-only analysis, but it does not state whether this is safe, what data is returned, or if any permissions are needed. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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, no annotations, and only a one-line description, the tool lacks critical context. It does not explain what metrics are reported, how missing indexes are determined, or how the optional parameters affect the analysis. The description is too sparse for a complex diagnostic 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?

The input schema has three parameters (table, schema, database_name) with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide or how they constrain the query.

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's function: 'Monitor foreign key performance and identify missing indexes.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_indexes or index_dedup by focusing on foreign keys and missing indexes.

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 implies usage for monitoring foreign key performance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied but not articulated.

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