find_unused_indexes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that analysis is based on information_schema and performance_schema statistics, excludes MySQL system tables, and details what 'unused' means (zero/few reads since server start). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for identification and benefits, and a note with exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the analysis scope, benefits, and data sources. However, without an output schema, it could briefly hint at return format (e.g., list of indexes with metrics) for better completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions analyzing user tables but doesn't elaborate on schema_name usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 with specific verbs ('find', 'identifies') and resources ('unused and duplicate indexes in MySQL user tables'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on index analysis rather than queries, replication, or other database aspects, and explicitly excludes system tables.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for analyzing user/custom tables to identify unused/duplicate indexes, with benefits like reducing storage and improving performance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., get_index_stats for general index statistics).

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