listTextIndexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local read. The description adds the semantics of the returned 'property' field ('*' = every string of the record), which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about scope limits, empty-project behavior, or pagination beyond the 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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the returned fields list trailing, no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and key field semantics. It leaves only minor gaps such as whether the result is paginated or what an empty index list looks like.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema requires no param documentation and the baseline is 4. The description uses the space to clarify a returned field's wildcard semantics rather than parameters, which is a reasonable use of the budget but not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a precisely qualified resource (the project's keyword/BM25 text indexes), which naturally separates it from the embedding-index siblings (findEmbeddingIndexes, getEmbeddingIndexStats). It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening the output schema.

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 are no parameters and the intent (enumerate the project's text indexes) is implied by the verb, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus createTextIndex, deleteTextIndex, textSearch, or the embedding-index listers. No conditions or exclusions are given, so usage is only inferred.

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