List table indexes

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the scoping phrase 'for a specific table,' which is useful, but it does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or the effect of the optional catalog_database parameter. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource. It is succinct and contains no filler or redundant phrases.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but for a simple list operation reading indexes, this is not a significant gap. The absence of an output schema is not a concern here.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add semantic value beyond the schema; it only repeats the notion of a specific table, which is already evident from the table_name parameter.

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 action (list) and resource (indexes for a specific table), with a specific scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hana_describe_index or hana_list_tables by focusing on index enumeration.

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 this tool is for retrieving indexes for a given table, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like hana_describe_index or state when not to use it. No exclusionary or alternative-use guidance is provided.

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