analyze_indexes

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 disclosure. While 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified, whether a MongoDB connection is required, or what the output format looks like beyond 'surface potential missing indexes'. It fails to disclose any side effects or operational requirements, which is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Analyze') and immediately specifies the subject and intended outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 fully documented parameter and a clear outcome in the description. It explains what the tool does and what it surfaces, which is adequate for a read-only analysis tool. However, it does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or how results are presented, which would improve completeness. Given the simplicity, a 4 is slightly generous but defensible as it covers the core use case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with projectPath fully described as 'Absolute or relative path to the Node.js project to analyze'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter – it merely mentions 'MongoDB query patterns' without tying it to the parameter. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers the 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('MongoDB query patterns against createIndex definitions'), and an explicit outcome ('surface potential missing indexes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on index analysis, whereas siblings like analyze_database_queries cover broader query behavior.

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 the alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferable to analyze_database_queries or analyze_project. Without this, an agent cannot confidently decide when to invoke it.

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