get_indexer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get') and adds context about the returned 'fields' array, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens for missing/invalid IDs. This is adequate for a simple GET but not fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and an important distinguishing detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-resource retrieval with one required parameter, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the resource, the selection mechanism, and a key aspect of the return payload. Absence of an output schema makes the 'fields array' mention helpful, though it could still clarify the exact response envelope.

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 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'indexer id'. The description confirms that the tool returns one indexer matching that ID, but it does not add meaningful new semantic detail about parameter format, constraints, or usage 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('one indexer'), clearly distinguishing it from list_indexers by scope. It also adds the valuable detail that the full 'fields' array is included, which identifies this tool's unique retrieval purpose.

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 for fetching a single indexer by ID, and the mention of the 'fields' array suggests why you might choose it over listing indexers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use get_indexer versus alternatives like list_indexers or get_indexer_schema, leaving some inference to the agent.

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