db.indexes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool lists indexes for 'user tables' (implying exclusion of system tables), which is useful scope context. However, it does not disclose the return format, behavior for invalid table names, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundancy. It conveys the core information efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.

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, the description covers the main purpose and table parameter usage, but it is incomplete in explaining the 'database' parameter and the output structure. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more detail about what the listing returns and how the database parameter affects the query.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the 'table' parameter (accepts table or schema.table name) and implies that omitting it lists all user tables. However, the 'database' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its semantics completely unexplained.

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 function: 'List PostgreSQL indexes for all user tables or one table'. It specifies the resource (PostgreSQL indexes) and scope (all user tables or one table), and even mentions how to specify the table ('table or schema.table name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like db.constraints or db.table_info.

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 gives some usage context (e.g., listing for all tables or a specific table) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for index listing but lacks comparisons to sibling tools.

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