MCP Vertica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'Index information as a string' but doesn't specify format, structure, or what happens with invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent tables). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the inclusion of 'ctx' in Args (which appears to be an internal framework parameter not in the actual input schema) adds slight unnecessary complexity.

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?

For a simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'Index information' includes (e.g., index names, columns, types) or handle edge cases, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for practical use.

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 description explicitly documents both parameters (table_name and schema) with brief explanations, though schema coverage in the input schema is 0%. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, particularly noting the default value for schema, but doesn't elaborate on constraints or examples for table_name format.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all indexes for a specific table', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_structure', which might also provide index information as part of table metadata.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_table_structure' or 'execute_query' for index-related queries. It states what the tool does but offers no context about when it's the appropriate choice among available options.

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