get_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses conditional behavior: if a query is provided, the most relevant pages are returned; otherwise the entire index is returned. It also notes that top_k only applies when a query exists. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 tightly structured: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted Args list. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the main behavior and all parameters. However, it does not provide usage context relative to get_detail or mention preconditions/errors, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with meaning: file_path is the full path, query is an optional search that returns relevant pages, and top_k is the result count defaulting to 5 and only active with a query. This adds value beyond the raw schema, though it lacks constraints like positive integer requirements.

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 opens with '获取 PDF 文件索引，支持语义搜索' (Get PDF file index, supports semantic search), which clearly identifies the action (get/retrieve) and resource (PDF file index). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_detail.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_detail, nor are there any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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