index_dedup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Identify' suggests a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that, nor does it disclose any side effects, performance implications, or what output to expect. Only the PostgreSQL 13+ prerequisite is mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the main action and resource. 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?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description still leaves gaps: it does not describe the result format, nor does it clarify parameter usage. It is serviceable but not complete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 0% and the description does not explain what the parameters (table, schema, database_name) do or how they affect the results. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the tool does not clarify whether they are filters, required, or how they interact (e.g., if table is specified without 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: identifying B-tree indexes that can benefit from deduplication. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_indexes by specifying the exact analysis (deduplication benefit) and the PostgreSQL version requirement.

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 using it when you want to find deduplication opportunities for B-tree indexes, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of 'use list_indexes for simple listing' or other exclusions.

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