orm_index_coverage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It suggests a read-only analysis ('Analyze... recommend') but doesn't explicitly confirm it won't modify data, nor does it describe output format, side effects, or access requirements. This is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, what the parameters do, or whether any prerequisites exist (e.g., needing ORM entities in the schema). More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It doesn't address 'schema' or 'database_name' beyond their names, which are only partially self-explanatory. The tool description provides no additional meaning about what values should be passed or how they influence the analysis.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze'), targets a clear resource ('index coverage for ORM @Query annotations'), and states the outcome ('recommend missing indexes'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_indexes or index_dedup.

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 the tool is for analyzing ORM query index coverage, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_indexes or orm_performance. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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