detect_index_misses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states detection criteria. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output format is. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a colon-separated list of indicators. Every word contributes meaning, and the main verb 'Detect' is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It lists detection criteria but omits details like the format or structure of results. For a simple tool with a single optional parameter, this is acceptable but not entirely complete.

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% for the single parameter 'database', which is clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema definition, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: detecting tables likely suffering from missing indexes, with specific indicators like seq-scan dominance, FK columns without indexes, and under-indexed hot tables. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_workload_indexes, which focus on queries rather than table-level detection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_workload_indexes or analyze_query_indexes. The description does not mention exclusion criteria or context for optimal use.

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