Get Table Indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance by disclosing that ClickHouse tables return sorting key and skipping indices rather than conventional indexes. This is context beyond the structured metadata.

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 entire description is one sentence that states the core behavior first, then adds the ClickHouse variation. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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-only introspection tool with rich annotations, the description provides enough information to call it correctly: it names the required resource and the subtle ClickHouse behavior. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema is promised and the operation is low-risk.

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 both 'table' and 'database' already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and resource ('indexes on a table or MongoDB collection'), and further clarifies the ClickHouse-specific behavior ('sorting key and skipping indices'). This clearly differentiates it from related introspection tools like get_foreign_keys or describe_table.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need index information for a table, collection, or ClickHouse table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation and resource scope are clear enough for an agent to select it without confusion.

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