pg_index_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or mention any prerequisites (e.g., being connected to a database). It adequately describes what the tool does without negative side effects.

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 sentence of 11 words, highly concise and front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous information.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could mention that a prior connection is needed (as suggested by sibling tools) or provide details on ordering or limitations.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context about the output (type, columns, uniqueness, size) but does not enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists indexes for a table and specifies the returned information (type, columns, uniqueness, size). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pg_table_list and pg_table_describe by focusing specifically on 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 when to use the tool (when index information is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like pg_constraint_list. Usage guidance is minimal.

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