create-spatial-index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create spatial index') without any information about side effects (e.g., whether it modifies database schema, requires write permissions, or affects performance), error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely performs a database mutation, this lack of transparency is critical and inadequate.

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 phrase that is under-specified rather than concise. While it's brief, it fails to convey essential information that would help an agent use the tool effectively. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, and this description lacks the necessary detail to be considered well-structured or helpful.

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 complexity of creating a spatial index (likely a database mutation), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a spatial index is, why one would create it, what the tool returns, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent 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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('geometry_column' and 'table_name'), including a default value for 'geometry_column'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value.

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 'Mekansal indeks oluştur' (Turkish for 'Create spatial index') is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what resource it acts upon (e.g., database table), what a spatial index is, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze-database' or 'get-table-info'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation and specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing tables with geometry columns), use cases (e.g., performance optimization for spatial queries), or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'analyze-database' and 'get-table-info', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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