list_table_indexes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that indexes are listed, with no details about output format, ordering, error behavior, or permissions. For a read operation, this is minimally transparent but falls short of what the rubric expects.

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 clear sentence with no waste, and the main action is front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified given the ambiguous parameters, but conciseness itself is strong.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves significant gaps: the two parameters are unexplained, no usage context is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. For a tool with low complexity, the description is still not complete enough to use correctly without further investigation.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the two parameters ('table' and 'table_name') at all. Both are optional with default null, but their purpose and relationship are entirely ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexes defined on a table'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_table_columns by specifying indexes rather than columns.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The description is a single sentence with no contextual usage advice.

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