get_table_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without mentioning read-only nature, output format, potential errors, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves safety and behavior assumptions implicit.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple metadata retrieval tool.

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 the simple nature of the tool and rich sibling context, the description is adequate but lacks details about return values (no output schema) and does not clarify behavior like whether all index types are included. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves some gaps.

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 each parameter (table, schema, database) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Get all indexes defined on a table' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (all indexes on a table), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_foreign_keys or get_table_constraints. It precisely states what is retrieved.

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 implies usage when indexes on a table are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention specific scenarios or prerequisites beyond the required table and schema parameters.

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