get_index_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions needed, or potential side effects. Returns are listed but not detailed.

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 sentence plus parameter/return notes) and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words, though the parameter line could be integrated more naturally.

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 adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return. It is complete for a simple stats tool, though it lacks context for its place among siblings.

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 only parameter 'index' is described as 'Name of the index' in the documentation, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema property definition. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates, but is still generic.

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 statistics for an index', specifying the action and resource. It lists return types (document counts, store size, etc.), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like describe_index or count_docs, which have overlapping purposes.

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 vs alternatives. Sibling tools like describe_index or count_docs are not mentioned, and there is no indication of prerequisites or contextual cues.

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