db_table_indexes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, which is useful, but the description does not disclose error behavior, whether primary keys are included, or how the index data is structured. Basic transparency exists, but it is minimal.

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 clear sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned index information includes. An agent can invoke it correctly, but the ambiguity around the return value format keeps this at a minimum-viable level.

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 already documents the only parameter 'table' as 'Table name', with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond contextually implying that the table is the target of the index lookup, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('indexes for a table'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like db_list_tables, db_describe_table, and db_foreign_keys. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the available siblings. It does not mention that db_describe_table covers table structure, db_foreign_keys covers relations, or any condition that would make db_table_indexes the preferred choice.

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