list_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. It correctly indicates a read-only listing behavior and that only accessible indexes are returned, but it does not add detail about output format, ordering, or absence of side effects beyond what the verb 'List' implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by specifying action, resource, scope, and context.

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 listing tool, the description covers the core invocation needs: it names what is listed and the access boundary. Since no output schema exists, a note about return format or downstream ID usage would improve completeness, but it is not critical for simply listing indexes.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned resource and scope.

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 states the exact verb ('List'), resource ('industry indexes'), scope ('you have access to'), and product context ('AEO Copilot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_index and get_index_results.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious: enumerate all indexes the user can access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but sibling tools such as create_index and get_index_results make the read/list usage context clear.

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