index_1

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. The single word 'index' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what resources it affects, potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is completely inadequate for a tool with unknown 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?

While extremely brief, this is a case of severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single word 'index' fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured. It doesn't front-load key details because there are none to present.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool definition is completely inadequate. The description provides no insight into what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 as per the rules for zero-parameter tools.

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 'index' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful information about what the tool does. It doesn't specify any verb or resource, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_2' or other similarly named tools in the list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools present (e.g., 'index_2', 'detail', 'list'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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