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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It explains how the tool works (tokenizes using analyzers), mentions conditional behavior (index vs no index, analyzer vs custom chain), and the explain option. It also describes return format. No contradictions, though it could mention that the tool is read-only.

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 well-structured with an intro paragraph, a detailed Args list, and Returns section. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value, making it concise for the complexity.

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 has 9 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most aspects: usage, parameter constraints, and return values. It might be missing some edge cases (e.g., behavior when both index and analyzer are omitted), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a complex tool.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains all 9 parameters: text, index, analyzer, tokenizer, filter, char_filter, explain, attributes, and cluster. It provides constraints (e.g., tokenizer cannot be used with analyzer) and usage context, adding significant meaning beyond the bare 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 analyzes text to see how it would be tokenized, specifying the purpose for debugging search queries in Elasticsearch/OpenSearch. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all index/data stream management and search operations, making its unique functionality evident.

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 explicitly states when to use: to understand tokenization and debug search queries. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear, and no alternative tools are mentioned among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite of a matching index template, but does not mention other behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or potential side effects.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured with a brief summary and then Arg breakdown. While effective, it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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 simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and parameter details. However, it lacks mention of error conditions or typical usage scenarios.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: 'name' is described as required, and 'cluster' is noted as optional with a default, which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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: 'Create a new data stream.' It specifies the action (create) and the resource (data stream), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_index or delete_data_stream.

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 mentions a prerequisite: 'The data stream must have a matching index template before creation.' This provides useful context, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., behavior if index exists) or required permissions. Only mentions optional configuration and cluster.

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?

Four brief lines with docstring format; every sentence provides value without 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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter tool; output schema exists so return details are not needed. Lacks mention of behavior on duplicate index.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains 'index' as name, 'body' as optional configuration with mappings and settings, 'cluster' as optional with default. Schema has 0% documentation 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?

Clearly states 'Create a new index' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like delete_index, get_index.

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?

Implied usage when a new index is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to avoid or alternatives such as create_data_stream or index_document.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'delete' but lacks side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the action.

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?

Short and focused: one-line action followed by parameter list. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple delete, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, return value) despite having an output schema. Could mention idempotency or safety notes.

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%, so description adds value by explaining each parameter: index, name, and optional cluster. Clear mapping to schema fields.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes an alias for an index. It distinguishes from sibling tools like put_alias (create/update) and get_alias (read).

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?

Usage is implied but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use this tool versus put_alias or other operations.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'deletes documents' (destructive), but lacks details on atomicity, rollback, permissions, or behavior with large matches. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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?

Description is very concise with a clear main sentence and bulleted parameter explanations. No extra words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits return value info, error cases, and safety considerations for a destructive operation. Annotations absent; description does not fully compensate.

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%, but the description provides basic meanings: index is name, body is query object, cluster is optional. This adds value over parameter names alone, but lacks constraints, format, or examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'Deletes documents matching the provided query.' Verb (deletes) and resource (documents) are specific. Sibling tools like delete_document and delete_index handle single document or whole index deletion, distinguishing this tool's bulk-by-query functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (delete_document, delete_index). Missing prerequisites (e.g., index must exist, query syntax expectations). Description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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

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

The description states that deletion is permanent and includes backing indices, which is important. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, or performance impact. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise: two sentences followed by a clean parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 deletion tool, the description covers what is deleted, permanence, and parameter details. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The context is complete given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools for related operations.

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?

Both parameters are described with additional context beyond the schema. The 'name' parameter clarifies it can be a comma-separated list or wildcard pattern, and 'cluster' explains the default behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate that it deletes data streams. The first sentence 'Delete one or more data streams' directly states the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'delete_index' or 'delete_document'.

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 explains that deletion is permanent and supports comma-separated lists or wildcard patterns, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., permanence, version conflicts), prerequisites, or the nature of the operation beyond deletion. The explanation of the cluster parameter is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with a single-sentence purpose and a bullet-like argument list. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information about error conditions, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., index existence). For a delete operation among similar sibling tools, this leaves some contextual gaps.

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 providing brief explanations for each parameter: index ('Name of the index'), id ('Document ID'), and cluster ('Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the descriptions are minimal.

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 'Delete a document by ID,' specifying the verb 'delete' and the resource 'document by ID'. This effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like delete_index or delete_by_query.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_by_query or delete_alias. Usage context is only implied by the action 'delete a document by ID,' but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is present.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to. It does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the index doesn't exist, or any permission requirements. The optional cluster parameter is noted, but that's more parametric than behavioral.

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 extremely concise, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: the action and the two parameters.

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 destructive nature of the tool, the description lacks warnings or preconditions. However, an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), and the parameter semantics are handled. It meets minimum adequacy but leaves gaps.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds needed context for both parameters: 'Name of the index' and 'Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.' This fills the gap effectively.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('an index'), making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_alias or delete_by_query.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_by_query or delete_data_stream). The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions HTTP methods but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, response format, or auth requirements, leaving gaps for a general request tool.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of arguments. No unnecessary words, and it is easy to scan.

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 flexibility and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. Missing details on output and error behavior, but reasonable for a general tool.

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%, but the description provides clear explanations for each parameter (method, path, params, body, cluster), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Slightly more detail on formats would improve it.

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 it performs a general HTTP API request for Elasticsearch/OpenSearch APIs, and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for APIs without a dedicated tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool for any Elasticsearch/OpenSearch API that does not have a dedicated tool,' effectively telling the agent when to use it versus the sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what happens if no aliases exist. The description only states the action without behavioral context.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value; there is no superfluous content.

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?

While parameters are explained and an output schema exists, the description lacks context about what 'alias information' entails (e.g., it returns all aliases pointing to the index). It is minimally complete given the tool's simplicity but could provide more detail about the return value or edge cases.

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 adds essential meaning to both parameters: 'index: Name of the index' and 'cluster: Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.' This clarifies the parameters beyond the bare 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 retrieves alias information for a specific index using a clear verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_aliases (which lists all aliases) and put_alias/delete_alias (which modify aliases).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_aliases or get_index. There is no discussion of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states that the tool returns health info but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 extremely concise, just two sentences plus a parameter docstring. The main purpose is front-loaded. No superfluous content.

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 simple inputs (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what the health information contains (e.g., status color, number of nodes). Could be more complete with a brief description of the output.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds clear semantics for the 'cluster' parameter: it is optional, and omitting it uses a default cluster. This goes beyond the schema's type/default. However, it does not explain what 'default cluster' means or how to specify it.

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 returns basic health information about the cluster. The verb 'returns' and resource 'health of the cluster' are specific. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'basic information' includes, leaving some ambiguity. The sibling 'get_cluster_stats' likely provides more detail, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cluster_stats'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling for missing clusters, or other side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then clarifying the parameter. Every word is necessary, no fluff.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on what 'high-level statistics' means, and could better differentiate from get_cluster_health.

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 parameter info in the description adds significant meaning: it explains that cluster is optional and defaults to the default cluster, which goes beyond the schema's type and default.

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 returns a high-level overview of cluster statistics, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes it from siblings like get_cluster_health, but could be more precise about what statistics are included.

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 mentions that the cluster parameter is optional and defaults to the default cluster, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cluster_health or search_documents.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It correctly states the tool is read-only (retrieves info), explaining parameter behaviors like wildcard support and defaults. However, it does not address authorization, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then breaks into parameter details. It is efficient, uses clear language, and avoids redundancy. Minor wordiness (e.g., 'and other information') could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input parameters thoroughly, including wildcard and default behaviors. For a retrieval tool, this is complete enough, though additional details on pagination or sorting would strengthen it.

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 adds significant meaning. It explains the 'name' parameter accepts comma-separated lists or wildcards and defaults to all, and 'cluster' is optional with a default. This goes well beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Get information about one or more data streams' and elaborates on retrieving configuration, mappings, settings. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on read-only retrieval, contrasting with creation, deletion, and other operations.

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 retrieving data stream information but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_alias, get_cluster_health, or get_index. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It clarifies that 'cluster' is optional with a default, but fails to mention authorization, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., if document not found). As a read operation, no side effects are stated.

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 concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a focused parameter list. No extraneous words, and the structure front-loads the main action.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description adequately covers parameter roles. However, it lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., non-existent document). For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: 'index', 'id', and 'cluster' with optionality and default. While brief, it adds value beyond the schema by specifying that cluster uses the default if omitted.

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 'Get a document by ID', providing a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like 'delete_document' and 'index_document', and the retrieval by ID contrasts with 'search_documents'.

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 you have a document ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_documents). No when-not or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter list. Front-loaded purpose with no wasted words. Well-structured.

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 info retrieval tool with an output schema, description is mostly complete. Minor gap: 'one or more indices' conflicts with schema requiring a single string; could clarify if comma-separated allowed.

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%, but description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'index: Name of the index' and 'cluster: Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.' This adds 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?

Description clearly states it returns information (mappings, settings, aliases) about indices. Verb 'get' with resource 'index' is specific. Distinguished from siblings like get_alias or get_document which target specific entities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios where siblings like get_alias or get_document are more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'creates or updates' but does not clarify whether updates are additive, overwrite existing fields, or replace the entire document. No side effects, auth requirements, or error behavior are mentioned.

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 concise, using a structured docstring format with args listed. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. However, the description is missing important context: whether the tool replaces or merges, what happens on duplicate ID, and error conditions. It is minimally complete for a simple operation but could be improved for a mutation tool.

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 description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema: it names the 'index', 'document', optional 'id', and 'cluster' with a default behavior ('Uses the default cluster if omitted'). This is helpful given the schema has zero property descriptions (0% 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: 'Creates or updates a document in the index.' This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_document, get_document, and search_documents.

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 lists arguments but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use this tool. Sibling names like create_index and delete_by_query imply some boundaries, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list,' implying read-only, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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?

Two-line description with front-loaded purpose and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, a single optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it omits any mention of the scope (e.g., user vs. cluster-wide) or differentiation from get_alias.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.' This clarifies the parameter's type, optionality, and default behavior 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?

Description explicitly states 'List all aliases,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_alias (single alias) and put_alias (create/update).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_alias or delete_alias. The description lacks when-not-to-use or context for selecting this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states only 'List all indices' without disclosing behavior beyond that, such as whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects.

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 very short with no wasted words: one sentence plus parameter explanation. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the scope of indices (e.g., all indices in the cluster) and does not mention any related concepts like system indices.

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 description explains that the 'cluster' parameter is optional and that omitting it uses a default. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only defines the parameter type and default as null.

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 'List all indices.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('indices'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_index' or 'get_index'.

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 by listing indices, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_aliases' or 'get_cluster_health'. No guidance on when not to use.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'Create or update' implying idempotency, but does not explain what happens if the alias already exists (e.g., overwrites, merges) or any side effects like permissions or rate limits.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose in a single sentence. The parameter list is clear but could be more streamlined.

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?

An output schema exists (though not shown), so return values need not be explained. However, the tool has a nested object parameter ('body') and lacks details on cluster behavior. Given the sibling tools context, it is moderately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Name of the index', 'Alias configuration'). 'body' is vague as 'Alias configuration' without further detail, but it adds some value 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 'Create or update an alias for a specific index,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_alias' and 'get_alias' by indicating the action is creation/update.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_alias or list_aliases. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has rate limits. The term 'search' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, leaving behavioral uncertainty.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. Parameter descriptions are listed clearly. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating the purpose from parameter details).

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?

Despite having an output schema (therefore return values are covered), the description lacks essential context for a search tool: it does not mention that results are a list, pagination, or size limits. This could mislead an agent expecting a single document or unlimited results.

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 must compensate. It provides brief explanations: 'Name of the index', 'Search query', and 'Optional cluster name. Uses the default cluster if omitted.' These add basic meaning but lack detail on the query format (e.g., Elasticsearch DSL). Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 'Search for documents' clearly states the action and resource. The name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_document' (single retrieval) and 'delete_by_query' (destructive search), though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate preferred use cases or contrast with siblings like 'get_document' or 'delete_by_query'. The agent must infer context solely from the name.

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