get_table_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality and multi-table support but fails to describe critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or the format of returned results. For a database query tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in both Chinese and English, front-loaded with the core purpose and key feature (multi-table support). There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity as a database search function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., index details, error messages), usage limits, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'text' documented as '要搜索的表名' (table names to search). The description adds value by specifying that it supports multi-table queries, implying the parameter can handle multiple names, but doesn't detail syntax (e.g., comma-separated) or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 as searching for table indexes based on table names, with the specific capability of supporting multi-table queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_table_desc (descriptions) and get_table_name (names) by focusing on indexes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_table_lock (locks) or optimize_sql (optimization), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 needing to find table indexes, particularly for multiple tables, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_table_desc for descriptions or execute_sql for direct queries. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios favoring this tool over others.

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