Easysearch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, causing significant ambiguity. For example, 'aggregate' and 'aggregate_simple' are very similar, as are 'doc_bulk' and 'doc_bulk_simple', 'search' and 'search_simple', and multiple 'cat_' tools that could be confused (e.g., 'cat_health' vs. 'cluster_health'). While descriptions help, the sheer number of similar tools makes it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the right one without deep domain knowledge.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a clear pattern: most tools use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_verb structure (e.g., 'index_create', 'doc_delete', 'cluster_health'). However, there are minor deviations like 'knn_search' (abbreviation mixed in) and some tools with slightly inconsistent prefixes (e.g., 'alias_actions' vs. 'ilm_add_policy'), but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count1/5
With 121 tools, this is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server. The count is far too high for typical agent use, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. Even for an Elasticsearch interface, this level of granularity is excessive and likely includes many low-level or administrative tools that agents rarely need, leading to confusion and inefficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool set is extremely complete for Elasticsearch operations, covering CRUD, search, aggregation, indexing, cluster management, ILM, snapshots, and more. There are no obvious gaps; every major Elasticsearch API endpoint appears to be represented, providing comprehensive coverage for the domain. Agents can perform complex workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 121 of 121 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除别名' (delete alias) implies a destructive mutation, but the description fails to mention: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what validation occurs, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with just three lines: title, then two parameter lines. While technically concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is basic but clear. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an alias is in this context, what deletion entails, what permissions are needed, what validation occurs, what the response contains, or how this differs from related tools. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters 'index: 索引名称' (index name) and 'name: 别名名称' (alias name), which provides basic semantic mapping. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only titles 'Index' and 'Name' without context. The description adds minimal value by specifying these are names, but doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or relationships between index and alias parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '删除别名' (delete alias) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'alias_delete' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of alias is being deleted (e.g., Elasticsearch index alias) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'alias_create' or 'alias_get'. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the resource 'alias' is too generic without domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, what happens after deletion, or how this differs from related tools like 'alias_actions' or 'index_delete'. The agent receives no contextual framing for this destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 description only lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it retrieves a single alias or multiple aliases, what format the output takes, whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three lines, but it's not well-structured or front-loaded. The first line '获取别名' is vague, and the parameter listing is basic. While there's no wasted text, the structure doesn't effectively communicate the tool's purpose upfront, making it less helpful for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output, differentiation from siblings, or parameter semantics. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing the parameters ('name' and 'index') and noting they are optional, but it doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., 'name' could be an alias name, 'index' could be an index name), their expected formats, or how they interact. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取别名' (Get alias) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'alias_get' in Chinese. While it indicates a retrieval action, it doesn't specify what kind of aliases are being retrieved (e.g., Elasticsearch index aliases), what scope is covered, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'cat_aliases' or 'alias_actions'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools related to aliases (e.g., 'alias_actions', 'alias_create', 'alias_delete', 'cat_aliases'), but the description doesn't explain how 'alias_get' differs from them, when it should be chosen, or any prerequisites for its use. This leaves the agent with no contextual decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 but offers none. '打开索引' doesn't reveal whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, what happens if the index is already open, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that presumably changes index state, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two lines, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's structured with a purpose statement and parameter listing, every sentence fails to earn its place by providing insufficient information. The conciseness is more a symptom of missing content than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (changing index state), complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'opening' an index entails, what the operation achieves, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which merely translates the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal information doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid index name, format requirements, or how this parameter affects the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '打开索引' (open index) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_open' in Chinese. While it identifies the resource (index), it lacks specificity about what 'opening' means operationally. Compared to sibling tools like 'index_close' or 'index_create', it doesn't clearly differentiate what makes this action distinct from related index operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 like 'index_close', 'index_create', 'index_get', and 'index_exists', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this tool should be selected over other index-related operations. The agent receives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('获取索引段信息') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list, which is efficient. However, the purpose statement is overly vague and doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context. The structure is clean but under-specified, making it more of a minimal placeholder than a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (e.g., Elasticsearch-related operations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'segments' are in this context, what information is returned, how to interpret results, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section listing 'index: 索引名称（可选）' (index: index name (optional)), which adds basic semantics about the parameter being optional and its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter documented, the description provides minimal value beyond what the schema already indicates through the 'default: null' property. It doesn't explain what happens when the index is omitted or provide examples of valid index names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取索引段信息' (Get index segment information), which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_segments'. While it indicates a retrieval action, it doesn't specify what kind of segment information is retrieved or how this differs from similar tools like 'cat_segments' or 'index_stats' in the sibling list. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 multiple sibling tools related to indices and segments (e.g., 'cat_segments', 'index_stats', 'index_get'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what scenarios it's designed for. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 description only states what the tool does ('获取索引映射') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the mapping information returns in, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two lines, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted text, the structure with a title line and parameter list is clear but too minimal. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description needs more content to be genuinely helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Elasticsearch index operations, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mapping' means in this context, what information is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool in a complex domain with many sibling tools, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the parameter 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Index'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter documented in the description, this provides minimal value. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid index name, whether wildcards are supported, or provide examples of index naming conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取索引映射' (Get index mapping) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_get_mapping' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool retrieves mapping information for an index, it doesn't specify what 'mapping' means in this context or distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'index_get' or 'index_get_settings'. The purpose is vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'index_get', 'index_get_settings', 'cat_indices', and 'field_caps' that might retrieve related index information, there's no indication of when this specific mapping retrieval tool is appropriate versus other index inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what happens if the document doesn't exist, or what format the response takes. For a document retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a one-line purpose statement followed by a parameter list. However, the structure is basic and not particularly well-organized for quick comprehension. The parameter explanations are extremely brief (2-4 Chinese characters each), which borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a document retrieval tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. While it lists parameters, it doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, when to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error or external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter information by listing all 5 parameters with brief Chinese explanations. While these explanations are minimal ('索引名称' for index name, '文档 ID' for document ID, etc.), they at least provide basic semantic meaning that the schema lacks entirely. The description compensates significantly for the schema's complete lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取文档' (Get document) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'doc_get' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of document, from what system, or with what characteristics. While it's clear this retrieves documents, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'doc_source' or 'doc_mget' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple document-related tools in the sibling list (doc_bulk, doc_delete, doc_exists, doc_index, doc_mget, doc_source, doc_update), there's no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus other retrieval methods like 'doc_mget' for multiple documents or 'doc_source' for source fields only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states '清除滚动上下文' (Clear scroll context) without explaining what 'clear' means operationally—whether it's destructive, what permissions are needed, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter listings. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading more critical information about the tool's behavior rather than just listing parameters. No wasted sentences, but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a clear/delete operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about what 'scroll context' is, how clearing affects system state, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The minimal parameter info doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters 'scroll_id' and 'all' with brief Chinese explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds basic meaning (scroll ID and whether to clear all), but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or format requirements. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '清除滚动上下文' (Clear scroll context) is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'scroll_clear' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'scroll context' refers to, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from related tools like 'scroll_start' or 'scroll_next' in the sibling list. The purpose is vague and lacks specific verb+resource differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or related tools like 'scroll_start' or 'scroll_next' from the sibling list. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states the action ('取消任务' - Cancel tasks) without explaining what cancellation entails (e.g., whether tasks are interrupted immediately, if they can be resumed, what happens to partial results, permission requirements, or system impact). This is inadequate for a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a clear structure (purpose, parameters, examples). However, the Chinese-only content may limit accessibility in multilingual contexts, and the parameter explanations are overly brief. While not verbose, the description under-specifies critical information for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a task cancellation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what tasks are, what cancellation means operationally, error conditions, or return values. The sibling tools include 'tasks_get' and 'tasks_list', suggesting this is part of a task management system, but no integration context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters with brief Chinese labels but adds minimal semantic value - it doesn't explain what '动作过滤' (action filtering) or '节点过滤' (node filtering) mean, how patterns work, or the relationships between parameters. The examples show basic usage but lack explanatory context. This provides some compensation but falls short of fully addressing the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '取消任务' (Cancel tasks) restates the tool name 'tasks_cancel' in Chinese, making it essentially tautological. It doesn't specify what type of tasks are being canceled (Elasticsearch tasks, background jobs, etc.) or provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'tasks_get' or 'tasks_list' beyond the obvious action of cancellation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task status), consequences of cancellation, or relationships with other task-related tools in the sibling list. The examples show parameter usage but don't explain context or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '获取节点属性' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a real-time vs cached view. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 Chinese characters), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While front-loaded, it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Elasticsearch operations and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'node attributes' includes, the return format, or how this differs from other node-related tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many alternatives, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取节点属性' (Get node attributes) restates the tool name 'cat_nodeattrs' (catalog node attributes) almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it indicates a read operation on node attributes, it doesn't specify what kind of attributes or how this differs from sibling tools like 'cat_nodes' or 'nodes_info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. With many sibling tools related to nodes (cat_nodes, nodes_info, nodes_stats, nodes_usage, nodes_hot_threads), the description offers no context about when this specific node attributes catalog tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. The parameter list provides some hints about behavior but no explicit behavioral guidance is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief with just the action name and a parameter list. While this is concise, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The information is front-loaded (action first, then parameters), but the parameter section lacks any explanatory text that would help an agent understand how to use them correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the deletion context (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch document deletion), doesn't describe what happens when documents are deleted, doesn't explain error conditions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 4 parameters with their names, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it only provides parameter names without explaining what each parameter means, their expected formats, or how they affect the deletion operation. For example, 'refresh' and 'routing' are listed but their purpose and acceptable values aren't explained. This provides basic parameter awareness but minimal semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '删除文档' which translates to 'delete document' - this is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'doc_delete'. While it clarifies the resource (document), it doesn't specify what type of document system this operates on or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'doc_delete_by_query', 'index_delete', or other deletion operations 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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion-related tools in the sibling list (doc_delete_by_query, index_delete, alias_delete, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific document deletion tool is appropriate versus those other options. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 description only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list, which is efficient. However, the purpose statement is overly vague and doesn't front-load critical information about what makes this tool unique. While not verbose, it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, missing opportunities to clarify usage in a compact way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Elasticsearch tools and the lack of annotations (0% coverage) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how it's structured, or any prerequisites or limitations. For a tool in a domain with many similar siblings, more context is needed to understand its role and output, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists two parameters with brief explanations: 'index' as optional index name and 'status' with allowed values (green/yellow/red/all). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details, so the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining what these parameters do (e.g., what 'status' filtering means in context) or providing examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't excel.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取分片存储信息' (Get shard storage information), which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_shard_stores' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about shard stores, it doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., status, allocation, details) or how this differs from sibling tools like cat_shards or index_segments that also provide shard-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to indices, shards, and cluster status (e.g., cat_shards, index_segments, cluster_health), there's no indication of what specific scenario or need this tool addresses that others don't. The parameter section lists options but doesn't explain the use cases for filtering by index or status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. '删除快照' (delete snapshot) implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with a purpose statement and parameter list, but it's not optimally structured. The purpose is overly concise (just two words), and the parameter section could be integrated more smoothly. While not verbose, it lacks front-loading of critical information and feels minimally composed rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature (deleting snapshots), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, success/error responses, or contextual nuances (e.g., impact on backup strategies). For a mutation tool in a complex system like Elasticsearch, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the two parameters ('repository' and 'snapshot') with Chinese labels, which adds basic semantic context beyond the schema's English titles. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., repository as a configured snapshot repository name, snapshot as a specific snapshot within it) or provide format examples. It partially compensates but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '删除快照' (delete snapshot) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'snapshot_delete' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of snapshot is being deleted (Elasticsearch repository snapshot), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_delete' (which deletes snapshot repositories rather than snapshots themselves). The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions, or related tools like 'snapshot_get' (to check snapshots first) or 'snapshot_restore' (which might be an alternative action). The parameter list is included but doesn't constitute usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions '原子切换别名' (atomic alias switching) in the example, which hints at transactional behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether operations are atomic, what happens on partial failures, or what permissions are required. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a title line, parameter listing, and helpful example. The structure is clear with separate sections, though the example could be better integrated. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more polished in presentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, atomicity guarantees, or how it differs from individual alias operations. The example helps but doesn't provide complete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only states 'actions: 操作列表' (actions: operation list) and provides an example showing add/remove operations. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's array type, leaving the full structure and available operation types undocumented. The example helps but doesn't provide comprehensive parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs '批量操作别名' (batch operations on aliases), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like alias_create, alias_delete, or alias_get, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the other alias-related tools (alias_create, alias_delete, alias_get). The example shows atomic switching of aliases, but there's no explicit statement about when this batch approach is preferred over individual operations or what specific use cases it addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 '创建别名' (create alias) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the alias already exists, or any rate limits. The examples show syntax but no behavioral context. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with purpose, parameters, and examples sections, which is organized. However, the purpose statement is under-specified (just '创建别名'), and the parameter explanations are minimal. While not verbose, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness. The structure earns some points but content is sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics and provides examples, but lacks critical context about behavior, error conditions, return values, and relationship to sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all 4 parameters with brief Chinese explanations. It provides concrete examples showing how to use the parameters, including optional filter and routing. While not exhaustive, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema. The baseline would be lower without this parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '创建别名' (create alias) which is a tautology of the tool name 'alias_create'. It doesn't specify what kind of alias is being created (Elasticsearch index alias) or what resources are involved. While the parameters hint at Elasticsearch context, the purpose statement itself is minimal and restates the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'alias_actions' or 'alias_delete'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), typical use cases, or when not to use it. The examples show basic usage but don't provide contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It only states the action ('获取别名列表' - get alias list) without detailing permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list, making it easy to scan. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and it uses minimal sentences. However, the lack of detail limits its effectiveness, but it's not overly wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (likely querying aliases in a system like Elasticsearch), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section noting 'name: 别名名称（可选）' (name: alias name (optional)), which adds meaning beyond the input schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's purpose (e.g., filtering aliases by name), format, or constraints. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取别名列表' (Get alias list) restates the tool name 'cat_aliases' in Chinese, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what kind of aliases (e.g., Elasticsearch index aliases) or provide context about the resource being accessed. While it includes a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('别名列表' - alias list), it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'alias_get' or 'alias_actions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'alias_get' and 'alias_actions' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'gets snapshot list' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, if there are pagination considerations, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two lines: a purpose statement and a parameter listing. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the main function. However, the parameter section could be more integrated rather than a separate bullet-like format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (snapshot management in what appears to be an Elasticsearch/OpenSearch context), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'snapshot list' contains, how results are structured, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only lists 'repository: 仓库名称' (repository: repository name) which repeats what's in the schema without adding meaningful context about what constitutes a valid repository name, format expectations, or how this parameter affects the snapshot listing. This provides minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取快照列表' which translates to 'Get snapshot list', providing a clear verb ('get') and resource ('snapshot list'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_get' or 'snapshot_status', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool from other snapshot-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple snapshot-related tools in the sibling list (snapshot_get, snapshot_status, etc.), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'refresh strategy' but doesn't explain what that means, nor does it cover critical aspects like atomicity, error handling, performance implications, or required permissions for bulk operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a purpose statement, parameter list, and example. However, the example is lengthy and could be simplified, and some sentences (like the parameter descriptions) are under-specified rather than truly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a bulk operation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on operation types, error behavior, performance characteristics, and comparison to siblings, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but provides incomplete information. It lists parameters and gives an example format, but doesn't explain what 'operations' contains beyond a basic structure, what actions are valid, or what 'refresh' controls. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '批量操作文档' (bulk operations on documents), which provides a basic purpose but is vague about what specific operations are supported. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like doc_bulk_simple, doc_index, or doc_update, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doc_bulk_simple or individual document operations. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter structure alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '刷新索引到磁盘' (flush index to disk), which implies a write operation that persists data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is safe during active operations, performance impact, or what happens when 'force' is used. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter notes. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main function. However, the parameter section is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'flushing' entails operationally, the effects of the 'force' parameter, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely modifies index persistence, this lack of detail is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 parameters 'index' and 'force' with brief Chinese notes ('索引名称（可选）' and '是否强制刷新'), but these add minimal semantic value beyond the schema's titles ('Index' and 'Force'). No details about format, constraints, or effects are provided, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '刷新索引到磁盘' (flush index to disk), which provides a clear verb ('flush') and resource ('index'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'index_refresh' or 'index_forcemerge', which also operate on indices. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'index_refresh' or 'index_forcemerge'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('获取 Ingest 统计信息') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects system performance, what format the statistics are returned in, or any rate limits. For a statistical retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two brief lines stating the purpose and parameter. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. However, the structure could be slightly improved by using complete sentences rather than fragmented lines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (statistical retrieval tool), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Ingest statistics' encompass, what the return format looks like, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns structured data about ingest pipelines or processors, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'node_id: 节点 ID（可选）' (node_id: node ID (optional)), which explains the parameter's purpose and optionality. However, it doesn't specify what format the node ID should be in, what happens when omitted, or provide examples. With one parameter and 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取 Ingest 统计信息' (Get Ingest statistics), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what specific statistics are retrieved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_stats' or 'nodes_stats' that also retrieve statistics. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve various types of statistics (index_stats, nodes_stats, cluster_stats, etc.), the description offers no context about what makes 'ingest_stats' distinct or when it should be preferred over other statistical tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'rebuild index' but does not clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, potential performance impacts, or error handling. The example implies a data migration, but without explicit safety or side-effect warnings, transparency is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with sections for parameters and an example, which aids readability. However, it includes redundant information (e.g., listing parameters that are already in the schema without adding much value) and lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. It is moderately concise but could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the reindexing process, potential side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves data manipulation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'source: 源配置', 'dest: 目标配置'). It adds meaning beyond the schema by hinting at their roles in reindexing, though it lacks detailed syntax or constraints. Since there are parameters, it exceeds the baseline but could be more informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with '重建索引' (reindex), which is a tautology of the tool name. It does specify a verb ('rebuild') and resource ('index'), but lacks specificity about what reindexing entails or how it differs from similar operations like index_clone or index_shrink. Without distinguishing from siblings, it remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lists parameters and an example but does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools like index_clone might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '滚动上下文保持时间' (scroll context retention time) in the parameter list, hinting at time-limited behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is read-only, pagination mechanics, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool that likely handles result pagination, this is insufficient 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with a purpose statement and parameter list, but the structure is basic and not front-loaded with critical information. The parameter section repeats what's in the schema without adding value, making it somewhat wasteful. However, it avoids excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools indicating this is part of a scrolling system (e.g., with scroll_start, scroll_clear), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the scrolling workflow, return values, error handling, or integration with other tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 parameters with brief Chinese labels ('滚动 ID' for scroll_id, '滚动上下文保持时间' for scroll), adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property titles. No details on format (e.g., scroll_id structure, scroll time units like '5m'), constraints, or examples are provided, leaving parameters poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取下一批滚动结果' (get next batch of scroll results), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'scroll_start' or 'scroll_clear', nor does it explain what 'scroll results' means in this context. The purpose is understandable but vague about the specific domain (likely Elasticsearch scrolling).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a scroll_id from scroll_start), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like search or msearch. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions parameters but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it executes searches using templates, validates templates, or returns template results. There's no information about permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens when both 'id' and 'source' parameters are provided. The example shows a search execution but the description doesn't explicitly state this is a search execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with clear sections for parameters and an example. However, the opening line '使用搜索模板' adds little value as a tautology. The structure is functional but not optimally front-loaded - the most important information (what the tool actually does) is missing entirely rather than being presented first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complex sibling relationships (multiple search and template tools), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, or how it differs from 'search' or 'template_get'. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for missing core contextual information needed for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies that 'index' is the index name, 'id' is for stored templates, 'source' is for inline templates, and 'params' are template parameters. The example further illustrates usage with 'id' and 'params'. This compensates well for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '使用搜索模板' (use search template) is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'search_template' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does with templates - whether it executes them, validates them, or searches for them. While it mentions parameters, it doesn't articulate the core action or resource being manipulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 numerous sibling tools like 'search', 'search_simple', 'knn_search', and 'template_get', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The example shows usage but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using templates versus direct search queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool '返回每个分片的段数量、大小、文档数等' (returns segment count, size, document count per shard, etc.), which gives some behavioral context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (likely, but not stated), performance characteristics, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description provides basic output information but misses key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with three lines, but the structure could be improved. The first line '获取段信息' is the core purpose, followed by a parameters section and return information. However, the formatting with extra whitespace and separate Chinese/English sections creates minor clutter. Every sentence earns its place, but the presentation isn't optimally front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a monitoring/diagnostic tool in a rich Elasticsearch-like ecosystem), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions what information is returned but doesn't explain the format, how to interpret the data, or relationships to other cat_* tools. For a tool that likely returns structured segment metadata, more context about the output and usage scenarios would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 mentions 'index: 索引名称（可选）' (index: index name, optional), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Index' title. However, it doesn't explain what happens when the index parameter is omitted (does it return segments for all indices?), nor does it provide format examples or constraints. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取段信息' (get segment information) which provides a basic verb+resource, but it's vague about what '段信息' (segment information) specifically entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'index_segments' or 'cat_shards' that might provide related information. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the Elasticsearch/OpenSearch domain (like cat_shards, cat_indices, index_segments), the description offers no context about when this specific segment information tool is appropriate versus other monitoring or diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'persistent' settings survive restarts and 'transient' settings don't, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation operation (implied by 'update'), what permissions are needed, potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a settings update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, parameter explanations, and a usage example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the purpose statement is tautological, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it's front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (cluster settings update with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks crucial context: what cluster this affects, what settings are valid, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool in a system with many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 clearly explains that 'persistent' settings are retained after restarts and 'transient' settings are lost after restarts, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's generic object types. The example further illustrates usage with a concrete setting. This adequately covers both parameters despite the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '更新集群设置' (update cluster settings), which is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'cluster_update_settings' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what kind of settings, what cluster it refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'cluster_settings' or 'index_put_settings'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With sibling tools like 'cluster_settings' (likely for reading settings) and 'index_put_settings' (for index-level settings), the description offers no context about scope, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. The example shows usage but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states '获取文档计数' (get document count), which implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform an agent adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two lines: a purpose statement and a parameter note. It's front-loaded with the main function, and there's no wasted text. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'document count' entails, how the index parameter affects results, or what the return value looks like. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it notes that 'index' is optional and provides a Chinese label '索引名称' (index name). With schema description coverage at 0%, this adds some value beyond the schema, but it doesn't explain the parameter's purpose (e.g., which index to count documents in, default behavior if omitted). The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter, but the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取文档计数' (get document count), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it's vague about what 'document count' means in this context (e.g., total documents in an index, specific filtered count) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'count' or 'cat_indices' that might serve similar functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'count' or other 'cat_' tools that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The parameter note is minimal and doesn't help with decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this tool requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it shows all tasks or only certain types, or any rate limits or constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the tool has 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and lists parameters, it doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide important behavioral context needed for proper tool selection and invocation in a task management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists both parameters ('detailed' and 'parent_task_id') with brief explanations, which adds value beyond the input schema that has 0% description coverage. However, the explanations are minimal ('是否显示详细信息' - whether to show detailed information, '父任务ID' - parent task ID) and don't provide deeper context about what 'detailed information' includes or how parent_task_id filtering works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取正在执行的任务' (Get currently executing tasks), which provides a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('正在执行的任务' - currently executing tasks). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get', which appear to serve similar functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools related to tasks (tasks_cancel, tasks_get, tasks_list), but the description doesn't indicate when cat_tasks is preferred over these other options or what specific use cases it addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '返回字段在各索引中的类型和能力' (Returns field types and capabilities across indices), which gives some output context, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's resource-intensive, or how results are structured. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three brief lines: purpose statement, parameter list, and return information. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the Chinese formatting with line breaks is slightly less structured than ideal but remains readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Elasticsearch operations, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'field capabilities' include, how results are formatted, whether this is a metadata query versus data query, or any error conditions. For a tool in this ecosystem with many alternatives, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters 'index' and 'fields' with minimal explanation ('索引名称' for index, '字段列表' for fields). This adds basic meaning but doesn't explain what format fields should be in, whether wildcards are allowed, or what happens with multiple indices. The description compensates somewhat but not fully for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取字段能力信息' (Get field capability information), which provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what 'field capability' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other field-related tools like 'cat_fielddata' or 'index_get_mapping' among the many siblings. The purpose is vague rather than clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to indices, fields, and data operations, there's no indication of when field_caps is appropriate compared to tools like 'index_get_mapping', 'cat_fielddata', or 'search'. The description offers no context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to guide the agent effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose line followed by parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is front-loaded with the main function. However, the formatting with extra spaces could be slightly cleaner, but it remains efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral context needed for a tool that retrieves settings. For a read operation with two parameters, more context is required to be fully helpful to an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters 'index' and 'include_defaults' with brief explanations in Chinese, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, it compensates somewhat but not fully, meeting the baseline for minimal viability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取索引设置' (get index settings), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (index settings). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_settings' or 'index_put_settings', and the purpose remains somewhat vague about what specific settings are retrieved. It's adequate but lacks specificity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to siblings like 'index_put_settings' for modifying settings or 'cluster_settings' for cluster-level settings. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '克隆快照' (clone snapshot) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose first, followed by parameter explanations. No wasted sentences, though the structure is simple. It could be slightly more polished but earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or operational constraints. For a mutation tool with multiple required parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 4 parameters with brief Chinese explanations, adding basic meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., what valid snapshot names look like) or explain the 'indices' parameter's comma-separated format beyond what's implied. It partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '克隆快照' (clone snapshot) which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_create' or 'snapshot_restore'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this cloning operation distinct from other snapshot operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'snapshot_create' or 'snapshot_restore'. The description only lists parameters without explaining the context or prerequisites for cloning a snapshot versus creating a new one or restoring from one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated snapshots, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two lines: a purpose statement and parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter section uses minimal formatting and could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deleting a snapshot repository' entails (metadata only? snapshots too?), error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and risk profile, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 'name: 仓库名称' (name: repository name), which adds basic semantic context for the single parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining format constraints, validation rules, or examples. The parameter documentation is minimal and doesn't fully address the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '删除快照仓库' (delete snapshot repository), which provides a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('snapshot repository'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_create' or 'snapshot_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deletion tool versus others in the snapshot/repository family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple snapshot-related tools (snapshot_delete, snapshot_repo_create, snapshot_repo_get, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate whether this deletes the repository metadata, all snapshots within it, or when it should be used over other deletion tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states '验证' (verify) but doesn't explain what verification involves (e.g., read-only checks, potential side effects, error handling, or output format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting includes extra whitespace. Every sentence earns its place, but it could be more front-loaded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (verification operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what verification entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 'name: 仓库名称' (name: repository name), which adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema's 'Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format constraints (e.g., string pattern) or examples, so it scores slightly lower.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '验证快照仓库' (verify snapshot repository), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what verification entails (e.g., checking connectivity, validating settings, or testing functionality) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' or 'snapshot_repo_create'. The purpose is clear but vague in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after creating a repository), exclusions (e.g., not for checking snapshot status), or related tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' for inspection. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns '分片状态、大小、所在节点等' (shard status, size, node location, etc.), which gives some behavioral context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a monitoring tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description provides basic purpose and return information. However, it lacks important context about the tool's scope (cluster-wide vs index-specific behavior when parameter is omitted), performance characteristics, and how it differs from similar 'cat_' tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions the 'index' parameter is optional and provides its purpose ('索引名称' - index name). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or explain what happens when the parameter is omitted versus provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取分片分布信息' (get shard distribution information), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cat_indices, cat_nodes, or cat_segments that also provide cluster information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'cat_' tools available (cat_aliases, cat_allocation, cat_indices, etc.), the description doesn't indicate what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice over other cluster monitoring tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions that the tool returns 'why documents match/not match queries and scoring calculation process', which implies it's a read-only analysis tool. However, it doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any limitations (e.g., performance impact). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a title and parameter list, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified—it lacks context about the tool's domain or system, and the parameter descriptions are minimal. While not verbose, it misses opportunities to add necessary clarity without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested query object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values in detail (e.g., what 'scoring calculation process' entails), the system context (e.g., Elasticsearch), or behavioral aspects like error handling. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists and briefly describes all three parameters (index, id, query), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'index' is the index name, 'id' is the document ID, and 'query' is the query condition. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail on query format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool '解释文档评分' (explains document scoring), which indicates its purpose is to analyze why documents match or don't match queries. However, it doesn't specify what type of system this is for (e.g., search engine, database) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'validate_query', making it somewhat vague rather than specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing document or index, or compare it to sibling tools like 'search' (for finding documents) or 'validate_query' (for checking query validity). This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '删除' (delete) which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on associated resources, or returns confirmation data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two lines: one stating the purpose and one listing the parameter. It's front-loaded but could be more structured; the parameter documentation is basic and doesn't add much beyond what's inferable. It avoids waste but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by documenting 'policy_id: 策略 ID' (policy ID: policy ID), though this is minimal. Since there are zero parameters with schema descriptions, the baseline would be 4, and the description meets this by at least naming the parameter, even if it doesn't provide format or sourcing details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '删除 ILM 策略' (delete ILM policy), which clearly indicates the verb (delete) and resource (ILM policy). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'slm_policy_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deletion tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'slm_policy_delete'. The description only states what it does without context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other deletion methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool checks for index existence but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'exists' means (e.g., only primary indices, includes aliases?), whether it requires specific permissions, response format details, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two lines: purpose statement and parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. However, the parameter section uses minimal formatting and could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 (which handles return values), the description's minimal approach is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more context about behavior, usage scenarios, and parameter details to be complete. The current description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds a parameter section listing 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which gives basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, allowed characters, or relationship to other tools' index parameters. It compensates somewhat but not fully for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '检查索引是否存在' (Check if index exists), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose as a verification operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'index_get' or 'cat_indices' that might also provide index information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to indices (index_get, index_get_settings, cat_indices, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for existence checking only versus retrieving metadata or listing indices. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description doesn't disclose what 'rolling over' actually does behaviorally - whether it creates new indices, deletes old ones, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing data, or what the expected outcome is. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond the basic action name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a title, parameter list, and example. However, it's not optimally front-loaded - the core purpose ('滚动索引') is too brief and vague, and the structure mixes Chinese and English inconsistently. The example is helpful but could be better integrated with explanatory text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what rollover means in Elasticsearch context, what happens to the old index, whether this is part of ILM, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The parameter documentation is good, but overall context is lacking for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 4 parameters with Chinese labels that clarify their purposes: alias (别名名称), conditions (滚动条件), settings (新索引设置), and mappings (新索引映射). The example further illustrates how conditions might be structured. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema which only provides generic titles like 'Conditions' and 'Settings'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '滚动索引' (rollover index) which indicates the general action, but it's vague about what rolling over an index actually entails. It doesn't specify whether this creates new indices, renames existing ones, or manages index lifecycle. The description doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like index_create, index_delete, or ilm_* tools that might handle index lifecycle management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for index management (index_create, index_delete, ilm_add_policy, etc.), there's no indication of when index rollover is appropriate versus creating new indices manually or using ILM policies. The example shows usage but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions '模拟 Pipeline 执行' (simulate pipeline execution), implying a read-only or testing operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this affects production data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the simulation output looks like. The example shows a simple case but lacks context on error handling or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with sections for parameters and an example, which helps readability. However, it includes redundant formatting (extra spaces) and the example could be more informative (e.g., showing verbose usage). Some sentences like '模拟 Pipeline 执行' are too brief, leaving gaps in explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the simulation returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The example helps but doesn't cover all parameters (e.g., id, verbose). For a tool with such rich context needs, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., '已存在的 Pipeline ID' for id, '内联 Pipeline 定义' for pipeline) and provides an example showing usage. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though details on parameter formats (e.g., pipeline structure, doc format) are still sparse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '模拟 Pipeline 执行' (simulate pipeline execution), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what type of pipeline this is (data processing, workflow, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pipeline_create' or 'pipeline_get'. The purpose is vague about the simulation's scope and output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pipeline or inline definition), nor does it differentiate from related tools like 'pipeline_create' for creating pipelines or 'search' for executing queries. Usage context is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('启动' - start) but doesn't describe what starting a policy actually does operationally (e.g., initiates scheduled snapshots, activates enforcement), whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two lines) and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter section. However, the first line is somewhat redundant with the tool name ('slm_policy_start' already implies starting an SLM policy). The parameter section is helpful but could be more efficiently integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but doesn't maximize information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple related sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'starting' means in this context, what happens after invocation, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it differs from other SLM policy operations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists the single parameter 'name' with a brief explanation ('策略名称' - policy name). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal information is sufficient to understand what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format constraints or examples (e.g., whether it's case-sensitive, must match an existing policy). Given the single parameter and complete lack of schema documentation, this earns a 4 for adding essential meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as '启动快照生命周期策略' (start snapshot lifecycle policy), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'slm_policy_stop' (which presumably stops the same policy), nor does it explain what 'starting' a policy entails versus creating or getting one. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools related to SLM policies (create, delete, explain, get, stop), but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether a policy must exist first), when starting is appropriate versus creating, or what happens if the policy is already running. Usage context is entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parameters like 'wait_for_completion' and 'timeout', which imply asynchronous behavior and potential delays, but doesn't explain what happens during waiting (e.g., blocking vs polling), error handling, or response format. For a tool with parameters affecting behavior, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more integrated; the structure is functional but not optimally efficient, with some redundancy in listing parameters that are already in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter basics but misses behavioral context (e.g., what 'details' include, error cases, async handling) and doesn't address sibling tool differentiation. For a tool with potential complexity in task management, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 adds meaning by explaining each parameter in Chinese: 'task_id' as task ID with format 'node_id:task_number', 'wait_for_completion' as waiting for task completion, and 'timeout' as wait timeout. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types, though it lacks details like timeout units or default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取任务详情' (get task details), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (task details). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_cancel', and the purpose could be more specific about what 'details' include. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_cancel'. The description only lists parameters without context for usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 description only states what the tool does ('get cluster health status') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with two clear sections (purpose and parameters), but includes unnecessary whitespace at the beginning. The structure is functional but not optimally front-loaded - the parameter section could be integrated more naturally. While not wasteful, it doesn't achieve the efficiency of the best examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cluster health monitoring and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'cluster health' means in this context, what metrics are included, what the 'concise format' entails, or what the tool returns. For a tool that presumably provides important system status information, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section that explains 'ts: 是否显示时间戳' (whether to display timestamp), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic boolean type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter documented in the description, this provides minimal compensation. The baseline would be lower, but the parameter explanation raises it to the minimum viable level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取集群健康状态（简洁格式）' which translates to 'Get cluster health status (concise format)'. This specifies both the action ('get') and the resource ('cluster health status'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'cluster_health' tool by mentioning the concise format. However, it doesn't explicitly explain how this format differs from the sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a sibling tool named 'cluster_health' that appears to serve a similar purpose, there's no indication of when to choose 'cat_health' over 'cluster_health' or other cluster-related tools. The description lacks any when/when-not statements or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 description only states it '获取集群设置' (gets cluster settings) without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what format the settings are returned in, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three lines: purpose statement followed by two parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear with purpose first. However, the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (retrieving cluster settings), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cluster settings' specifically means, how the output is structured, or how this differs from other cluster tools. The parameter explanations help, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively among alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides Chinese explanations for both parameters: 'include_defaults: 是否包含默认设置' (whether to include default settings) and 'flat_settings: 是否扁平化显示' (whether to display flattened). With 0% schema description coverage, these explanations add significant value beyond what the schema provides (which only shows titles 'Include Defaults' and 'Flat Settings' in English). The description compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取集群设置' (Get cluster settings), which provides a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('集群设置' - cluster settings). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_health', 'cluster_state', or 'cluster_stats', all of which also retrieve cluster information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple cluster-related tools in the sibling list (cluster_health, cluster_state, cluster_stats, cluster_update_settings), there's no indication of what specific cluster settings this tool retrieves or when it's preferable to other cluster tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '返回集群完整状态信息' (returns complete cluster state information), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires special permissions, has performance impacts, returns real-time vs cached data, or handles errors. For a cluster state tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose, parameters, and return statement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces structural efficiency, but the content is well-organized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cluster operations, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool that likely returns critical system information, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing both parameters ('metric' and 'index') and providing semantic context: 'metric' accepts specific types like 'version/master_node/nodes/routing_table/metadata/blocks' and both parameters are optional. This adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain all possible values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取集群状态' (get cluster state), which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_health', 'cluster_stats', or 'cluster_settings' that also provide cluster-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'cluster_health' or 'cluster_stats'. The description only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no policy_id is provided. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It uses minimal space effectively, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the ILM policies are returned in, whether there's pagination for multiple policies, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'policy_id' is optional and that omitting it returns all policies. This clarifies the parameter's behavior beyond what the schema provides. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of policy_id values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取 ILM 策略' (Get ILM policy) which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (ILM policy). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ilm_policy_create' or 'ilm_policy_delete' beyond the basic action. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to use it over other ILM tools like 'ilm_policy_create', or any contextual limitations. It simply documents the parameter behavior without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '清除' (clear) implies a destructive operation, there's no information about permissions required, whether this operation is reversible, performance impact during execution, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description doesn't mention side effects, rate limits, or system state changes beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. No wasted sentences. However, the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner, and the information is somewhat dense without visual separation between the main description and parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive cache-clearing operation with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when no index is specified (clear all caches?), whether operations are atomic, what confirmation/response to expect, or performance implications. Given the complexity of cache management in search/index systems, more context is needed for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter information that compensates for the schema gap. It lists all 4 parameters with brief Chinese explanations: index (索引名称), fielddata (清除 fielddata 缓存), query (清除查询缓存), and request (清除请求缓存). This clarifies what each boolean flag controls, though it doesn't explain default behaviors or parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '清除索引缓存' (Clear index cache), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of cache is being cleared or differentiate this from other cache-related operations that might exist among the many sibling tools. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about the caching system involved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including various index operations (index_create, index_delete, index_refresh, etc.), there's no indication of when cache clearing is appropriate versus other maintenance operations or how it relates to performance optimization scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '更新' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. The example shows a simple update but doesn't describe broader 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief but not optimally structured. It leads with the purpose statement, then lists parameters, then provides an example. However, the example could be more integrated, and there's some formatting inconsistency with the Chinese text. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It identifies what the tool does and its parameters but lacks crucial context about behavioral implications, error conditions, return values, and usage boundaries. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 both parameters ('index' and 'settings') and provides an example showing usage. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes valid settings, format requirements, or constraints beyond what's implied by the example. The description adds basic parameter identification but minimal semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('索引设置' meaning 'index settings'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'index_get_settings' (read) and 'cluster_update_settings' (cluster-level). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other index modification tools like 'index_put_mapping'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like 'index_create' for initial setup or 'cluster_update_settings' for cluster-wide changes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool '获取索引恢复状态' (gets index recovery status), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three lines: a purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the main function, and each sentence adds value without waste. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context such as output format, error handling, or usage scenarios. For a tool that interacts with system recovery status, more behavioral and contextual information is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters 'index' and 'active_only' with brief explanations in Chinese: '索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional) and '仅显示进行中的恢复' (only show ongoing recovery). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles 'Index' and 'Active Only'. The descriptions clarify optionality and the effect of 'active_only', compensating well for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取索引恢复状态' (Get index recovery status), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (index recovery status). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_recovery' or 'snapshot_restore' that might also relate to recovery operations, making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the recovery domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cat_recovery' or 'snapshot_restore', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions parameters and an example but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a vector search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for parameters and an example, and it's appropriately sized without unnecessary text. However, the title is null and the purpose statement is brief, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters but misses crucial context like output format, error conditions, and behavioral details needed for a vector search operation in what appears to be an Elasticsearch context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations in Chinese (e.g., '索引名称' for index, '向量字段名' for field), adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details on formats (e.g., vector array structure) or constraints, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'K近邻向量搜索' (K-nearest neighbor vector search) which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about the specific resource and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple'. It doesn't specify what type of data or system this operates on (e.g., Elasticsearch indices).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'search' or 'search_simple'. The description only lists parameters and an example without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '重新加载安全设置' implies a write operation that modifies system state, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, if it's destructive, what side effects occur, or how long it takes. The mention of a password parameter hints at security implications, but behavioral details are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. No unnecessary words are used. However, the purpose statement is overly terse and could benefit from more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'secure settings' are, what system this targets (likely Elasticsearch based on siblings), expected outcomes, error conditions, or security implications. The parameter explanations help but don't compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by documenting both parameters in Chinese: '节点 ID（可选）' (node ID, optional) and 'keystore 密码' (keystore password). This clarifies that node_id is optional and secure_settings_password is for keystore access, which the schema titles alone ('Node Id', 'Secure Settings Password') don't fully convey. However, it doesn't explain keystore context or password format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '重新加载安全设置' (reload secure settings), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'secure settings' are, what system this applies to, or how it differs from other configuration tools like 'cluster_update_settings' or 'index_put_settings' among the siblings. The purpose is understandable but vague about scope and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes many configuration and node management tools, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '删除' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a title and parameter section, but it's somewhat sparse and could be more front-loaded with critical information. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but may be too minimal for optimal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a deletion operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the parameter 'id' with a brief label ('Pipeline ID'), but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds minimal semantic context (identifying it as a Pipeline ID) but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to obtain it. This meets the baseline for partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('删除' meaning delete) and the resource ('Ingest Pipeline'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pipeline_get' or 'pipeline_create', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pipeline_get' or 'pipeline_create', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions that 'snapshot' parameter supports wildcards and '_all' for all snapshots, which adds some context. However, it doesn't describe what information is returned, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any error conditions—critical gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter basics but lacks critical context: what information is returned, how results are formatted, whether it's safe/read-only, and how it differs from sibling tools. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'repository' (repository name), 'snapshot' (snapshot name, optional, supports wildcards and '_all'), and 'verbose' (whether to show detailed information). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like what 'verbose' entails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取快照信息' (get snapshot information), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_status', making it vague about what specific snapshot information it retrieves versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_status'. The description only lists parameters without context about appropriate use cases, leaving the agent with no explicit or implied usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It only states what the tool does ('获取快照仓库信息') without describing the response format, whether it returns a single repository or multiple, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with a parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., repository details, status, settings), how results are formatted, or error handling. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name', explaining it's optional and supports wildcards. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well by clarifying usage. However, it doesn't detail the format of the name or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取快照仓库信息' (Get snapshot repository information), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_create', 'snapshot_repo_delete', or 'cat_repositories', leaving the specific scope and differentiation unclear. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of repository information is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cat_repositories' (which might list repositories) or 'snapshot_repo_verify' (which might verify repository status), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the action ('restore') but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive operation (likely overwrites existing indices), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens during execution (e.g., cluster impact). The example shows renaming but doesn't explain the broader behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably structured with a purpose statement, parameter list, and example. However, it includes a parameter list that largely repeats what's in the schema (though schema has 0% coverage), and the example could be more efficiently integrated. Some sentences don't add substantial value beyond listing parameter names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex, potentially destructive operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or important behavioral constraints. The example helps but doesn't address the completeness needed for safe and effective use of this restoration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 8 parameters with brief Chinese translations, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional documentation. The description adds basic semantic meaning (e.g., '重命名模式（正则）' explains rename_pattern is a regex pattern), but doesn't provide detailed usage guidance, default behaviors, or constraints beyond the parameter names. The example demonstrates some parameters but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '恢复快照' (restore snapshot). It specifies the verb ('restore') and resource ('snapshot'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_create' or 'snapshot_clone', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), typical use cases, or warnings about potential data overwriting. The example shows a specific scenario but doesn't generalize to broader usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation prompts, affects dependent resources, or provides any success/failure response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two lines: a purpose statement and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, error conditions, or response format. While the parameter semantics are covered, the overall context for safe and correct tool invocation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists the parameter 'name: 模板名称' (name: template name), which provides clear semantic meaning for the single required parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this description adequately compensates by explaining what the parameter represents, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '删除索引模板' (delete index template), which provides a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('index template'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_delete' or 'template_get', making it vague about what specifically distinguishes this template deletion operation from other deletion operations in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple deletion-related sibling tools (doc_delete, index_delete, alias_delete, etc.), but the description offers no context about when template deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations or prerequisites for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool does ('get fielddata memory usage') without describing whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. For a system monitoring tool, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two clear sections: purpose statement and parameter explanation. No wasted words, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner. Every sentence serves a purpose in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'fielddata' is, what the memory usage output looks like, whether this requires special permissions, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity of Elasticsearch fielddata concepts, more context would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides basic parameter information ('fields: 字段名（可选，逗号分隔）') which explains the optional nature and format (comma-separated). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what happens when fields is omitted or provide examples of valid field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取 fielddata 内存使用' (get fielddata memory usage), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like other 'cat_' commands that might provide different system information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like 'cat_segments' or 'cat_nodes' that might provide related system information. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (node name, IP, role, load, memory usage) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with three lines: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value summary. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly cleaner (e.g., bullet points for returns).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (node information retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks sufficient behavioral context. It mentions return values but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'full_id' with its purpose ('是否显示完整节点 ID' - whether to display full node ID), adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it adequately, this compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取节点信息' (get node information), which provides a basic verb+resource but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what type of nodes (e.g., Elasticsearch cluster nodes) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'nodes_info' or 'nodes_stats', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'nodes_info' or 'nodes_stats' in the sibling list. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone without contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the action ('get list') but doesn't describe what the list contains, format, pagination, permissions required, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('获取快照仓库列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list output looks like, any filtering or sorting options, or behavioral traits. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取快照仓库列表' (Get snapshot repository list) states the verb ('get') and resource ('snapshot repository list'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' or 'cat_snapshots', which also deal with snapshots/repositories. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to snapshots and repositories (e.g., 'snapshot_repo_get', 'snapshot_repo_create', 'cat_snapshots'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation ('获取列表'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all templates or has pagination, what format the output takes, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear sections: purpose statement and parameter documentation. No wasted words or redundant information. The structure with a clear header and bullet point for parameters is effective, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information. However, without annotations and with behavioral gaps (no output format, no pagination/limiting details), it's only minimally adequate. The presence of many sibling tools (especially other cat_* commands and template_* operations) suggests more contextual guidance would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'name' as optional and indicates it's for filtering by template name. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only shows name is a string with default null), this adds meaningful semantic context. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (exact match? partial match?), which limits its utility for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取索引模板列表' (Get index template list), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from other cat_* tools by focusing on templates rather than aliases, indices, nodes, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from template_get (which might retrieve a single template) or template_create/delete (which modify templates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to use cat_templates versus template_get (for single template retrieval) or other cat_* commands for different resource types. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for listing templates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions the return values (cluster name, status, node count, shard count), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a health-check tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately concise. It uses three clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns) with minimal wasted text. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, documenting parameters, and describing return values. The formatting with clear headings enhances readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values at a high level, which is adequate for a simple health-check tool. However, it lacks details about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools that would make it more complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'index' is described as optional and for specifying an index, and 'level' is described as optional with possible values (cluster/indices/shards). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates somewhat by providing basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or format requirements beyond what's minimally stated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取集群健康状态' (Get cluster health status). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '集群健康状态' (cluster health status), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_health' or 'cluster_stats', which appear to serve related but potentially different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cat_health', 'cluster_stats', or 'cluster_state', nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned (document count, storage size, index count, node info), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description provides some output context but misses critical operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with minimal redundancy. The structure is logical and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, given the complexity of cluster statistics operations and the lack of output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned information or performance considerations. The description covers the essentials but leaves gaps for operational use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'node_id' and indicates it's optional. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema offers. The description clarifies that this parameter allows filtering by specific node, which is valuable information not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取集群统计信息' (get cluster statistics) which provides a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_health', 'cluster_state', or 'nodes_stats'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique among cluster-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also provide cluster information (cluster_health, cluster_state, nodes_stats, cat_nodes, etc.), the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool does (counts documents) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, whether it affects system state, what authentication is needed, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and examples. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Chinese-only content might limit accessibility for some agents, but the structure itself is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (counting with optional filtering), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just a number? structured response?), error conditions, performance implications, or how it differs from similar counting operations in the extensive sibling tool list. The examples help but don't provide complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists both parameters ('index' and 'query') and provides examples showing their usage. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, format requirements for the query object, or what the optional query parameter actually filters. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '统计文档数量' (count document quantity), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_count' or 'index_stats' which might also provide counting functionality in different contexts. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 including 'cat_count', 'search', and various index operations, there's no indication of when this count tool is appropriate versus other counting methods. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a delete operation (destructive), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletions are permanent, performance impact, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The example shows a date-range deletion, but no broader behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. However, the structure could be improved - the purpose statement is brief but the parameter explanations are minimal. The example is helpful but doesn't replace proper behavioral context. No wasted sentences, but could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers parameters but lacks critical information about the delete operation's behavior, consequences, error handling, and output format. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing safety and operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 4 parameters with brief explanations: 'index: 索引名称' (index name), 'query: 查询条件' (query conditions), 'refresh: 是否刷新' (whether to refresh), 'conflicts: 冲突处理 abort/proceed' (conflict handling). The example demonstrates query syntax. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '按查询删除文档' (delete documents by query). It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (documents) with a method (by query). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doc_delete' (which likely deletes by ID) or 'doc_update_by_query' (which updates rather than deletes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to 'doc_delete' (for single documents) or 'doc_update_by_query' (for updates). There's no discussion of prerequisites, performance implications, or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('检查文档是否存在') without describing behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what happens with invalid parameters, or what the output format is. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. The structure is logical (purpose then parameters), though the parameter section could be more integrated. No wasted sentences, but the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter names but lacks crucial context. It doesn't explain what 'exists' means in this context, what authentication is needed, or how routing affects the check. For a verification tool in a complex sibling set, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly lists and names all 3 parameters (index, id, routing) in Chinese. This provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what each parameter means or how they interact. For 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation earns a 4 rather than the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '检查文档是否存在' (Check if document exists), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose as a verification operation. However, it doesn't differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'index_exists' or 'doc_get' that also check document/index status. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 for document operations (doc_get, doc_delete, index_exists, etc.), there's no indication of when this existence check is preferred over retrieving the full document or checking index status. No context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves document _source without metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by a parameter list. It uses minimal words to convey key information, though the parameter explanations are brief and could be more structured. There's no wasted text, making it efficient but slightly under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error cases, and return values. For a retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage without relying on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters ('index', 'id', 'source') with brief explanations, adding some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats, constraints, or examples (e.g., what 'source' array should contain). With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully document all three parameters, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '仅获取文档 _source（不含元数据）' translates to 'Only get document _source (excluding metadata).' This specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('document _source'), and scope ('excluding metadata'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doc_get' or 'doc_mget', which likely retrieve full documents including metadata, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'doc_get' (which probably retrieves full documents with metadata) or 'doc_mget' (for multiple documents), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool updates documents by query but doesn't describe important traits: whether this is a bulk operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, or what the response format looks like. The example shows a script parameter but doesn't explain script language or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: the title-like statement, parameter explanations, and practical example. However, the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial information about behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context. Given the complexity of update-by-query operations, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 4 parameters with brief Chinese explanations and provides an example showing usage. However, the explanations are minimal ('查询条件（可选，不传则匹配所有）' for query) and don't fully explain parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. The example helps but doesn't replace proper documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '按查询更新文档' (update documents by query). It specifies the verb (update) and resource (documents) with a method (by query). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like doc_update or doc_delete_by_query, which would require more specific scope or behavior details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with similar tools like doc_update (single document update) or doc_delete_by_query (delete by query). The example shows usage but doesn't explain context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'remove' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is reversible, what happens to the index after policy removal, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear sections: a purpose statement and parameter documentation. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. While efficient, the Chinese-only presentation might limit accessibility in multilingual contexts, but this doesn't significantly impact conciseness within the given language context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter, but fails to address critical contextual information: what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions required, side effects, or how this differs from related ILM operations. For a tool that modifies system state, this level of documentation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter 'index' and provides its purpose ('索引名称' - index name). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond what the bare schema provides. However, it doesn't elaborate on format requirements, constraints, or examples for the index parameter, keeping it at a baseline level of adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('从索引移除' - remove from index) and the resource ('ILM 策略' - ILM policy), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other ILM policy tools like 'ilm_policy_delete' by specifying it removes a policy from an index rather than deleting the policy definition entirely. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings like 'ilm_add_policy' in terms of opposite operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple ILM-related tools in the sibling list (ilm_add_policy, ilm_policy_create, ilm_policy_delete, ilm_policy_get), but the description doesn't explain when this specific 'remove from index' operation is appropriate versus deleting the policy definition itself or other ILM operations. No context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions that the tool executes multiple searches in one request, which implies a batch operation, but lacks details on error handling, response format, performance implications, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose statement, lists parameters with brief explanations, and provides a helpful example. There's minimal waste, though the formatting includes extra whitespace that doesn't affect clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing multiple searches, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like response handling, error scenarios, and performance considerations, which are crucial for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds value by explaining that 'searches' is a list where each item contains 'header' and 'body', and includes an example showing the structure. However, it doesn't fully document all aspects (e.g., what fields 'header' and 'body' should contain, data types, constraints), leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '多重搜索（一次请求执行多个搜索）' translates to 'Multi-search (execute multiple searches in one request).' This specifies the verb ('execute multiple searches') and resource ('searches'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple' beyond the multi-request aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple', nor does it specify contexts where batching searches is beneficial (e.g., efficiency, bulk operations). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions what information is returned (node configuration, JVM info, thread pool config, etc.), but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, what format the return data takes, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value summary. Each sentence earns its place, though the Chinese-only format may limit accessibility for some agents. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters and return types. However, for a node information tool in a complex Elasticsearch-like system with many sibling tools, it should provide more context about when this specific API is appropriate versus alternatives. The absence of annotations means the description should do more heavy lifting on behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'node_id' as optional with comma-separated multiple values, and 'metric' with specific allowed values (settings/os/process/jvm/thread_pool/transport/http/plugins/ingest). This adds significant meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain default behaviors when parameters are omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取节点信息' (Get node information), which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cat_nodes' or 'nodes_stats' that also provide node-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'cat_nodes', 'nodes_stats', or 'nodes_usage'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'returns usage counts for APIs and aggregations', which gives some behavioral insight into output format. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that likely queries system statistics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three short lines: purpose, parameters, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error cases, which are important for a tool that interacts with system data. The return value is mentioned but not detailed, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'node_id' as optional node ID and 'metric' as statistic type (rest_actions/aggregations). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format or constraints for 'node_id' or explain what 'rest_actions' and 'aggregations' entail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取节点功能使用统计' (Get node function usage statistics), which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('node function usage statistics'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes_stats' or 'nodes_info' that also provide node-related information, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lists parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other node-related tools like 'nodes_stats' or 'cluster_stats', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The two-line structure with a parameter note is efficient, though the Chinese-only text might limit accessibility in some contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Ingest Pipeline' is, what data is returned, or how to interpret results. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds that 'id' is optional and supports wildcards, which provides meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what a Pipeline ID is, format requirements, or examples of wildcard usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource 'Ingest Pipeline', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pipeline_create' or 'pipeline_delete', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'pipeline_simulate' or other pipeline-related tools. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a policy but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects existing snapshots, or has side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two lines: one stating the purpose and one listing the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note more seamlessly, but it's still efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations. For a tool that permanently removes resources, more detail is needed to ensure safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics by stating 'name: 策略名称' (name: policy name), which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but incomplete context—it doesn't specify format (e.g., exact policy name) or constraints. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here one parameter is partially documented, warranting a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('删除' meaning delete) and the resource ('快照生命周期策略' meaning snapshot lifecycle policy). It distinguishes from siblings like 'slm_policy_create', 'slm_policy_get', and 'slm_policy_explain' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ilm_policy_delete' which handles a different type of lifecycle policy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., policy must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose this over other deletion tools like 'snapshot_delete'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a retrieval operation ('获取'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no matching policies are found. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical information about the tool's behavior and usage context. The two-sentence format is efficient but could be more comprehensive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the policy information is returned in, how to interpret results, or how this tool relates to other SLM policy operations in the sibling tool list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds valuable semantic information about the single parameter: it explains that 'name' is optional and supports wildcards like 'daily*'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't explain what happens when the parameter is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource '快照生命周期策略' (snapshot lifecycle policy), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slm_policy_explain' or 'slm_policy_create', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple related tools (slm_policy_explain, slm_policy_create, slm_policy_delete, etc.) but no indication of when this retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the action ('stop') but doesn't describe what stopping entails (e.g., does it pause future snapshots, cancel in-progress ones, or affect existing snapshots?), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. There's no wasted text, but it could be more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info into the main sentence. The two-line format is efficient but not perfectly optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and how it interacts with other SLM tools. Given the complexity of stopping a lifecycle policy, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists the parameter 'name' and indicates it's the '策略名称' (policy name), adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap. With one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the information is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('停止' meaning 'stop') and the resource ('快照生命周期策略' meaning 'snapshot lifecycle policy'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'slm_policy_start' beyond the obvious stop vs. start distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the policy must be running), consequences, or when to choose this over other SLM-related tools like 'slm_policy_delete' or 'slm_policy_explain'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('创建') but doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or error conditions. The examples hint at settings but don't explain behavioral outcomes like storage implications or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a purpose statement, parameter list, and examples, which is logical. However, it includes redundant formatting (extra whitespace) and could be more front-loaded; the examples are detailed but might bury essential usage info. It's moderately concise but not optimally streamlined for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but misses critical behavioral details (e.g., permissions, idempotency, error handling) and doesn't explain the return value or success/failure indicators. For a tool that creates resources in a system like Elasticsearch, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists all three parameters (name, type, settings) with brief explanations and provides concrete examples for 'fs' and 's3' types, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully document all possible 'type' values or 'settings' structures, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, this is strong but not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('创建' meaning 'create') and resource ('快照仓库' meaning 'snapshot repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_delete' and 'snapshot_repo_get' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other repository-related tools beyond the name, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions or existing infrastructure), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'snapshot_create' or 'snapshot_repo_verify'. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool executes SQL queries and shows parameter usage, but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether queries are read-only or can modify data, authentication requirements, rate limits, timeout behavior, error handling, or result pagination beyond fetch_size. For a SQL execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for description, parameters, and examples. It uses minimal Chinese text efficiently. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise, and the examples section could be integrated more tightly with the parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a SQL execution tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics and shows examples, but misses critical context: what SQL dialect is supported, whether DML/DDL queries are allowed, transaction behavior, connection requirements, error formats, and result structure. The absence of output schema means the description should explain return values but doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists all three parameters with brief explanations: 'SQL 查询语句' (SQL query statement), '返回格式 json/csv/txt/yaml' (return format), and '每次获取的行数' (rows fetched each time). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't provide format details, fetch_size constraints, or query syntax guidance. Examples show query usage but not format/fetch_size usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '执行 SQL 查询' (execute SQL query), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search' or 'aggregate' by focusing on raw SQL execution rather than Elasticsearch-specific query DSL. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with SQL-like alternatives in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'search', 'aggregate', or 'count'. There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or limitations. The examples show basic SQL queries but don't explain context for choosing SQL over native Elasticsearch APIs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the parameter supports wildcards, which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the formatting with extra whitespace and a separate '参数:' section could be slightly more streamlined, but it remains efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on behavior, return format, or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, it's minimally adequate but leaves the agent to guess about output structure and operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'name' is optional and supports wildcards. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides type/name without explanation), this compensates well by clarifying usage and optionality. Since there's only one parameter, the description effectively covers its semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '获取索引模板' (Get index template), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (index template). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cat_templates' or 'template_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval method versus other template-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'cat_templates' (likely listing templates) and 'template_delete' available, the description offers no context about whether this is for detailed retrieval, listing, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates query syntax but doesn't describe what happens during validation - whether it returns errors, warnings, success status, or what format the output takes. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each line serves a purpose with no wasted words. The formatting with clear parameter listing makes it easy to scan, though the Chinese-only presentation might limit accessibility in some contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks important context about what validation entails and what results to expect. For a validation tool that presumably returns validation results, the absence of output information is a notable gap, though the parameter explanations partially compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all four parameters with brief explanations in Chinese: '索引名称' (index name), '查询条件' (query conditions), '是否返回详细解释' (whether to return detailed explanation), and '是否返回重写后的查询' (whether to return rewritten query). With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter information is essential and adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. The explanations clarify what each parameter controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '验证查询语法' (validate query syntax), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of query or system this validates for, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'explain' or 'search' that might also involve query analysis. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'explain', 'search', and 'search_template' that might overlap with query validation functionality, there's no indication of when validate_query is appropriate versus those other tools. The description is purely functional without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It only states what the tool does ('获取分片恢复状态') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it lacks critical operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It uses minimal sentences (two lines) with no wasted words, making it efficient. A slight deduction as the structure could be more polished (e.g., bullet points), but it's clear and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (monitoring recovery status), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether it's safe for frequent use. For a tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'index: 索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional) and 'active_only: 仅显示进行中的恢复' (only show ongoing recovery). This clarifies purpose beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage and only provides titles. Since there are 2 parameters and the description covers them adequately, it compensates well for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear purpose: '获取分片恢复状态' (Get shard recovery status). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '分片恢复状态' (shard recovery status), which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_recovery' or 'cat_shards', which might have overlapping functionality in an Elasticsearch context, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no explicit instructions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools (e.g., 'cat_shards', 'index_recovery') that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It warns of danger but doesn't specify what makes it dangerous (e.g., irreversible data loss, impact on queries, permissions required). It mentions wildcard support but doesn't explain behavioral implications like bulk deletion. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the operation's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, warning, and parameter explanation in three lines. No redundant information is present. However, the warning could be more integrated rather than parenthetical, and the parameter section uses minimal formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions needed, irreversible consequences, error conditions, or what happens to associated data/aliases. The warning is vague, and without structured safety hints, the agent cannot fully assess risks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'index' by explaining it accepts wildcard patterns like 'logs-*', which isn't evident from the schema alone (0% coverage). This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it could elaborate on pattern matching behavior or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('删除索引' - delete index) and identifies the resource ('索引' - index). It distinguishes from siblings like index_create or index_close by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like doc_delete or snapshot_delete beyond the index focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with only a warning label ('危险操作' - dangerous operation). It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_close for temporary deactivation, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the constraint about shard count multiples, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as it creates a new target index), what permissions are required, whether the source index remains accessible during the operation, or what happens to existing data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and a constraint note. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with a specific constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex index mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters adequately but lacks crucial context about the operation's behavior, side effects, error conditions, and expected outcomes. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of how this tool actually works and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters in Chinese: 'source' (源索引名称), 'target' (目标索引名称), and 'settings' (目标索引设置). It adds crucial semantic context that the settings must include 'number_of_shards'. This goes significantly beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain the format or constraints of the settings object beyond the shard requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '拆分索引（增加分片数）' translates to 'Split index (increase number of shards)'. It specifies the verb ('split') and resource ('index') with the specific goal of increasing shard count. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_shrink' or 'index_clone' which also modify indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it mentions a constraint ('新分片数必须是原分片数的倍数' - 'new shard count must be a multiple of original shard count'), it doesn't indicate when this operation is appropriate compared to other index modification tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the statistics are returned in, whether it's a real-time or cached view, or any rate limits. For a statistics tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief but could be better structured. The purpose statement is clear, but the parameter documentation uses a bullet-like format that's slightly awkward. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, but the formatting could be cleaner for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, statistics retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about what statistics are returned, their format, or behavioral considerations. For a statistics tool without structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides valuable parameter semantics beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'index' is optional and provides the name, and crucially lists all possible values for the 'metric' parameter (docs/store/indexing/get/search/merge/refresh/flush/warmer/query_cache/fielddata/completion/segments/translog). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions and enum constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取索引统计信息' (get index statistics), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_indices', 'index_segments', or 'cluster_stats' that might provide related statistical information, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that could provide statistical or index-related information (cat_indices, index_segments, cluster_stats, nodes_stats, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different statistical needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it overwrites existing pipelines, error handling beyond the on_failure parameter, or what the response looks like. The example shows syntax but lacks behavioral context like idempotency or 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It starts with the purpose, then lists parameters, provides an example, and ends with a processor reference list. However, the processor list is quite extensive (11 items) and might be better placed in a separate reference. The content is valuable but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job. It explains what the tool does, documents parameters, provides an example, and lists processor types. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details like response format, error conditions, permissions, and idempotency behavior that would be needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations (id, description, processors, on_failure) and providing an extensive list of common processor types with their functions. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints beyond the examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: '创建 Ingest Pipeline' (Create Ingest Pipeline), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pipeline_delete and pipeline_get by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pipeline_simulate or other ingest-related tools beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like pipeline_simulate or other ingest processors. The example and processor list are helpful but don't constitute usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes what parameters the tool accepts and provides examples, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a complex search tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and multiple examples. While somewhat lengthy due to the parameter details and examples, every section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the examples are directly relevant to tool usage. Minor deduction for some redundancy between parameter list and examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job explaining parameters but has significant gaps. It doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While parameter coverage is excellent, other contextual aspects are missing, making this incomplete for a complex search operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0% (all parameters have generic titles like 'Index', 'Query', etc.), but the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose in Chinese with helpful details: '索引名称（支持通配符和逗号分隔多个索引）' explains index accepts wildcards and comma-separated lists, and the examples demonstrate complex usage patterns for query, sort, pagination, etc. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '执行搜索查询' which translates to 'execute search query' - a clear verb+resource statement. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_simple', 'knn_search', or 'search_template' which also perform search operations. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 multiple search-related siblings (search_simple, knn_search, search_template, msearch), there's no indication of when this full-featured search tool is appropriate versus simpler or specialized alternatives. The examples show usage patterns but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool performs '简单关键词搜索' but doesn't describe what kind of results are returned, whether there's pagination beyond the 'size' parameter, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The example usage shows basic syntax but lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear title, parameter list, and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose - the title establishes function, parameters explain inputs, and examples demonstrate usage. The bilingual nature (Chinese description with English parameter names) is slightly inconsistent but functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters well but lacks crucial information about return format, error handling, performance limits, or how results are structured. The examples help but don't compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear parameter documentation in Chinese, explaining each parameter's purpose: 'index: 索引名称' (index name), 'keyword: 搜索关键词' (search keyword), 'field: 搜索字段（可选，不传则全字段搜索）' (search field, optional, searches all fields if not provided), and 'size: 返回数量' (return count). With 0% schema description coverage, this documentation is essential and well-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs '简单关键词搜索' (simple keyword search), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the more general 'search' sibling tool by emphasizing simplicity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search-related siblings like 'search_template' or 'knn_search'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 including 'search', 'search_template', 'knn_search', and 'msearch', there's no indication of when this simplified version is appropriate versus more complex search operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions the return content ('分片数、磁盘使用情况' meaning 'shard count, disk usage'), which adds some context, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting with extra spaces could be slightly cleaner, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving disk allocation info), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return values, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making in a rich sibling tool environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'node_id', explaining it as '节点 ID（可选）' (node ID, optional), which clarifies its purpose and optionality. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates, providing essential context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('节点磁盘分配信息' meaning 'node disk allocation information'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_nodes' or 'nodes_stats', which might provide overlapping or related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 in the Elasticsearch context (e.g., 'cat_nodes', 'nodes_stats'), there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'cat_allocation', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('获取' - get) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, rate limits, whether it's real-time or cached data, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant words. For a simple tool, this is appropriately sized and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'information' includes (e.g., node ID, IP, role, status), how data is returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex Elasticsearch-like environment with many siblings, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no gap to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取当前主节点信息' (Get current master node information) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('主节点信息' - master node information). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cat_nodes' (which lists all nodes) and 'cluster_state' (which provides broader cluster state). However, it doesn't specify the exact format or scope of 'information' (e.g., whether it includes node details, status, or just identity).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'cat_nodes' or 'cluster_state'. The description implies it's for master node information specifically, but doesn't clarify scenarios (e.g., monitoring, failover checks) or prerequisites. Without usage context, the agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool returns '活跃线程数、队列大小、拒绝数' (active thread count, queue size, rejection count), which gives some output context, but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, its performance impact, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value description. Each sentence earns its place by adding specific information. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor formatting issues (extra whitespace) don't detract significantly from clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (monitoring with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return values, but lacks behavioral context like safety, performance, or error handling. The return value description helps compensate for the missing output schema, but overall completeness is limited to basic operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful parameter information beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only shows 'thread_pool' as an optional string parameter. The description explains this is '线程池名称（可选）如 search/write/get' (thread pool name, optional, e.g., search/write/get), providing examples and clarifying it's optional. With only one parameter and good semantic clarification, this compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取线程池状态' (get thread pool status). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '线程池状态' (thread pool status), making it unambiguous what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_nodes' or 'cat_health' which also provide monitoring information, though the specific focus on thread pools is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'nodes_stats' or 'cluster_stats' that might also provide thread pool information. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('获取' means get), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large result sets, rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'pending tasks' entail, the return format, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, so it appropriately avoids parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the parameter-free case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取集群待处理任务列表' (Get cluster pending tasks list) clearly states the verb (get/list) and resource (cluster pending tasks). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_pending_tasks' or 'tasks_list' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'cat_pending_tasks' and 'tasks_list' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions between these tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '写入文档' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, what permissions are required, whether it creates indices automatically, or what the response format looks like. The examples show basic usage but lack 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter list with explanations, and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place, though the Chinese-only format might limit accessibility for non-Chinese speaking agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It covers parameters reasonably well but misses critical behavioral context (error handling, response format, side effects) and doesn't explain the tool's role within the broader Elasticsearch sibling tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations in Chinese. It clarifies that 'id' is optional (自动生成 if not provided) and shows refresh accepts true/false/wait_for values. The examples demonstrate practical usage with different parameter combinations, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '写入文档' (write document) which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like doc_delete, doc_get, doc_update by focusing on document creation/indexing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from doc_bulk or doc_update which are also write operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like doc_bulk (for batch operations), doc_update (for modifications), or index_create (for index-level operations). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('bind') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens during binding (e.g., whether it's immediate, requires specific permissions, affects existing data, or has side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation and an example. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the main function. The example is helpful but could potentially be integrated more seamlessly into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what parameters it accepts. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, timing) and doesn't explain what the tool returns, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists both parameters ('index' and 'policy_id') with Chinese labels that clarify their purpose, and provides a concrete example showing how to use them. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description fully compensates for the schema gap, adding substantial value beyond the bare input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('给索引绑定' - bind to index) and resource ('ILM 策略' - ILM policy), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ilm_remove_policy' or 'ilm_policy_get', but the verb 'bind' is specific enough to convey the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling ILM tools (e.g., 'ilm_remove_policy' for removal, 'ilm_policy_get' for retrieval). The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets index details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), potential performance impacts, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The mention of wildcard support for the index parameter adds some context but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The structure is clear, though minor formatting issues (extra spaces) slightly reduce readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return values (mappings, settings, aliases details), error conditions, or how wildcards affect results. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'index' is the index name and supports wildcards, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't provide examples of wildcard usage or constraints, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '索引详情' (index details), specifying what information is retrieved (mappings, settings, aliases). It distinguishes from siblings like 'index_get_mapping' or 'index_get_settings' by indicating it retrieves multiple aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'index_exists' or 'cat_indices' in terms of scope or detail level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools for index-related operations (e.g., 'index_get_mapping', 'index_get_settings', 'index_exists', 'cat_indices'), but no indication of when this comprehensive tool is preferred over more specific ones or when it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the outcome ('make recently written documents searchable') but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (likely mutating based on 'refresh'), performance impact (e.g., resource-intensive), permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a parameter section. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note into the main description for better flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (index refresh operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but misses behavioral details (e.g., side effects, performance) and doesn't explain return values. For a mutation-like tool, this leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'index' is optional and defaults to refreshing all indices if not provided. With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has title 'Index' and type 'string'), this compensates well by clarifying usage semantics, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., index naming rules).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '刷新索引（使最近写入的文档可搜索）' translates to 'Refresh index (make recently written documents searchable).' This specifies the verb (refresh), resource (index), and outcome (make documents searchable). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_flush' or 'index_forcemerge,' which may have overlapping or related functions in the Elasticsearch context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., after bulk writes), exclusions (e.g., not needed for real-time search), or comparisons to siblings like 'index_flush' or 'index_forcemerge.' This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves a list but doesn't describe what the list contains (e.g., pattern names, descriptions, syntax), how it's formatted (e.g., JSON array, paginated), or any limitations (e.g., read-only access, potential rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though it correctly implies a read operation without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data structure) or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. While simple, the tool requires more context for effective use, especially in a server with many sibling tools where clarity on outputs is crucial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for this case, as the description efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取内置的 Grok 模式列表' clearly states the action (获取/retrieve) and resource (内置的 Grok 模式列表/built-in Grok pattern list). It's specific about retrieving a list of patterns rather than individual patterns or operations on them. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'ingest_processor_grok_get' or 'ingest_processor_grok_create' that might exist in other contexts, though none are present in the provided sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing Grok processors to be available, or suggest other tools for related tasks like creating custom Grok patterns or applying them in pipelines. With many sibling tools present, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool '返回策略的详细解释，包括下次创建/删除快照的时间' (returns detailed policy explanation including next snapshot creation/deletion times), which adds some behavioral context about the return format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, lists parameters with explanations, and ends with return details. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The structure is clear, though minor formatting could be improved for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a policy explanation tool with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return details, but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency. For a tool with no structured output, it should ideally provide more on the return format, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only shows a 'name' parameter of type string. The description specifies that 'name' is '策略名称（支持通配符如 daily*）' (policy name, supports wildcards like daily*), clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '解释快照生命周期策略' (explain snapshot lifecycle policy). It specifies the verb ('解释' - explain) and resource ('快照生命周期策略' - snapshot lifecycle policy). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'slm_policy_get' or 'explain', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'slm_policy_get' or 'explain', nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is to get policy details, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '创建快照' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The parameter list provides some operational details but not comprehensive 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor issue is that the purpose statement is extremely brief ('创建快照'), though this is culturally appropriate for Chinese documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It documents parameters well but lacks information about return values, error conditions, performance characteristics, and how this tool relates to other snapshot operations. The examples help but don't fully compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 6 parameters with brief explanations in Chinese. It clarifies that 'indices' is optional and defaults to backing up all indices when not provided, and explains the purpose of boolean flags like 'ignore_unavailable' and 'include_global_state'. The examples further illustrate parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '创建快照' (create snapshot), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like snapshot_clone, snapshot_delete, or snapshot_restore, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a repository first), when not to use it, or how it differs from related snapshot operations in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool returns progress details for ongoing snapshots, implying it's a read-only operation focused on monitoring. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if it supports pagination or filtering beyond the optional parameters, and what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with the return value. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The only minor issue is the formatting with extra whitespace, but the content itself is efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent has incomplete information for reliable invocation, though the basics are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage (titles only). It explains that 'repository' and 'snapshot' are optional parameters and clarifies their purposes (repository name and snapshot name). This compensates well for the low schema coverage, providing essential context that the schema alone does not. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取快照状态' (get snapshot status) and '返回正在进行的快照的详细进度' (returns detailed progress of ongoing snapshots). It specifies the verb (get/return) and resource (snapshot status/progress), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_snapshots' or 'snapshot_get', which likely serve related but different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'cat_snapshots' for listing snapshots or 'snapshot_get' for retrieving snapshot details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' pending cluster tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens when no pending tasks exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with zero structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simple complexity) and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the pending tasks are returned in, whether there are filtering options, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with multiple task-related alternatives, more differentiation would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension since no parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取待处理的集群任务' (Get pending cluster tasks) clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '待处理的集群任务' (pending cluster tasks). It distinguishes from general task tools like 'cat_tasks' or 'tasks_list' by specifying 'pending' tasks, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cluster_pending_tasks' which appears to serve a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'cat_tasks', 'tasks_list', and 'cluster_pending_tasks' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or what limitations it might have compared to similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '获取已安装的插件列表' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or how comprehensive the list is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states what the tool does. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place - there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells you what the tool does but doesn't provide context about the output format, potential limitations, or how it fits with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '获取已安装的插件列表' clearly states the purpose: retrieving a list of installed plugins. It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and resource ('已安装的插件列表' - installed plugins list). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_aliases', 'cat_indices', or other 'cat_' tools that also list different types of information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are many other 'cat_' tools in the sibling list (cat_aliases, cat_indices, cat_nodes, etc.) that serve similar listing purposes for different resources, but the description doesn't indicate this is specifically for plugins or when you'd choose this over other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. '手动重新路由分片' (manual rerouting of shards) implies a potentially disruptive administrative operation, but the description doesn't disclose risks, permissions required, cluster state implications, or whether this can cause downtime. The dry_run parameter hints at safety testing but isn't explained behaviorally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations and examples are directly relevant. Minor deduction because the Chinese/English mix creates some redundancy, but overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex administrative tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains parameters well but lacks critical context about when to use it, what permissions are needed, potential cluster impacts, return values, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'commands: 路由命令列表' (routing command list) and 'dry_run: 是否仅模拟执行' (whether to only simulate execution). The examples provide concrete syntax for move and cancel operations, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'manually reroutes shards' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_health or cluster_settings by focusing on shard routing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cluster_allocation_explain which also deals with shard allocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when manual rerouting is appropriate versus automatic rebalancing, or what conditions warrant its use. The examples show how to use it but not when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the read-only requirement for the source index, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what '克隆' (clone) actually does - whether it copies data, settings, mappings, aliases, or creates a new physical index. No information about permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if target already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with four lines: title, parameter list, and one important note. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter listing is clear but could be more integrated with the description. No wasted sentences, though the structure is somewhat basic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what '克隆' entails operationally, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. The read-only requirement is helpful but insufficient for a tool that likely performs significant index operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential parameter information: source (源索引名称), target (目标索引名称), and settings (目标索引设置). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, explaining what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format requirements, constraints, or examples for the settings object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with '克隆索引' (clone index), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like index_create, index_shrink, and snapshot_clone by focusing on cloning between existing indices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from reindex or other data-copying operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one important guideline: '源索引必须是只读的' (source index must be read-only). This gives context about prerequisites but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like reindex, index_shrink, or snapshot_clone. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool performs 'simplified aggregation queries' but doesn't describe what that means operationally - whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens on errors, or what the output format looks like. The examples help but don't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. Every sentence earns its place by adding value. The only minor issue is the Chinese language content might be less accessible to some agents, but the structure itself is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, performance characteristics, or how it differs from the 'aggregate' sibling tool. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides the complete enum list for agg_type, clarifies that 'size' only applies to 'terms' aggregation, and gives concrete examples showing how parameters work together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'simplified aggregation queries' (verb+resource), which distinguishes it from other search/query tools like 'search' or 'count'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'aggregate' tool, which appears to be a more complex version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregate', 'search', or 'count'. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns '索引名称、健康状态、文档数、存储大小等' (index name, health status, document count, storage size, etc.), which gives some output context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. Minor improvement could be front-loading the purpose more prominently, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. It mentions return values but doesn't describe format, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with filtering/sorting capabilities, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 fully. It provides detailed parameter semantics in Chinese: explains 'index' is optional with pattern matching, 'health' accepts green/yellow/red values, 'pri' shows only primary shard statistics, 'sort_by' accepts fields like store.size/docs.count, and 'order' accepts asc/desc. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose as '获取索引列表' (get index list), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like cat_health, cat_nodes, etc., which focus on different aspects of the Elasticsearch cluster. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cat_aliases or cat_templates, which also list indices-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over index_get, index_stats, or other cat_* tools like cat_health. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for explanation/diagnosis, which implies it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or if it has side effects. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, and usage context in separate lines. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the usage context earlier. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (diagnostic with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job: it explains the purpose, parameters, and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, permissions) and output format, which are important for a diagnostic tool. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a parameter section that explains each parameter: 'index: 索引名称（可选，不传则解释第一个未分配分片）' (index name, optional, if not provided explains the first unallocated shard), 'shard: 分片编号' (shard number), 'primary: 是否主分片' (whether primary shard). With schema description coverage at 0%, this adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's basic types, clarifying optionality and default behavior. However, it doesn't cover all possible nuances like valid ranges for 'shard'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '解释分片分配决策' (explain shard allocation decisions) and adds '用于诊断分片为什么未分配或分配到特定节点' (used to diagnose why shards are unallocated or allocated to specific nodes). This provides a specific verb ('explain/diagnose') and resource ('shard allocation decisions'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_reroute' or 'cat_shards' which are related to cluster/shard operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: '用于诊断分片为什么未分配或分配到特定节点' (used to diagnose why shards are unallocated or allocated to specific nodes). This suggests when to use it (for diagnostic purposes), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'cluster_reroute' for changing allocations, 'cat_shards' for listing shards). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions this is a '写入' (write) operation and '仅支持 index 操作' (only supports index operations), but doesn't describe what 'index 操作' means, whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. Each section earns its place, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose statement first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics (purpose, parameters, example) but lacks important context about what 'index 操作' means, error conditions, response format, and how this differs from the 'doc_bulk' sibling tool. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all three parameters (index, documents, refresh) and providing a clear example showing how documents should be structured. The example demonstrates the array format for documents and suggests refresh is optional (not shown in example). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs '简化的批量写入' (simplified bulk writing) with '仅支持 index 操作' (only supports index operations). This specifies both the verb ('批量写入' - bulk writing) and resource ('文档' - documents), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'doc_bulk' which appears to be a more comprehensive bulk operation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through '简化的' (simplified) and '仅支持 index 操作' (only supports index operations), suggesting this is a limited version of bulk operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the 'doc_bulk' sibling tool or other document operations, nor does it 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool does (batch retrieval) and shows parameter usage, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling for missing documents, response format, or performance considerations. The description provides basic functionality but lacks behavioral context needed for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, with every sentence serving a purpose. The Chinese text is efficient, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner. It's front-loaded with the main purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (batch operation with multiple parameter approaches), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It explains parameters well but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a batch retrieval tool in what appears to be an Elasticsearch context, more context about response structure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in Chinese, clarifying their purposes and relationships (noting that index works with ids, and docs is an alternative approach). It provides concrete examples showing how parameters interact. While it doesn't specify data types or constraints, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '批量获取文档' (batch get documents), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_get (single document retrieval) and doc_bulk (batch indexing), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance through the parameter explanations and examples, showing two different ways to use the tool (with docs array or with index+ids combination). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_get for single documents or msearch for more complex queries. The examples help but don't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it shows update operations through examples, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether updates are atomic, what happens on conflicts, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The examples help but leave critical operational context unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter list, and two practical examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, with the examples being particularly valuable for understanding different update modes. The Chinese-only text is concise and focused, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but has significant gaps. It covers the core update functionality and parameter purposes through examples, which is valuable. However, it lacks information about error handling, response format, performance characteristics, concurrency behavior, and detailed parameter constraints - important context for a document update operation in what appears to be a search/indexing system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 6 parameters with brief explanations and providing two detailed examples that demonstrate how 'doc' and 'script' parameters work differently. The examples clarify that 'doc' is for partial field updates while 'script' allows programmatic updates, adding significant semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain 'refresh' parameter options or 'upsert' behavior in detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb '更新' (update) and resource '文档' (document), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doc_update_by_query' or 'doc_index', which perform similar document operations but with different approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides two concrete examples showing when to use partial updates vs. script updates, which gives implied guidance on usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'doc_update_by_query' for bulk updates or 'doc_index' for full document replacement, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '创建索引' (create index) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The example shows usage but doesn't explain outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. The Chinese text is efficient, though the example is detailed. Every section adds value, but the purpose statement is minimal ('创建索引') and could be more descriptive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity (nested objects, write operation), it's incomplete but not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 a Chinese parameter list ('参数:') with clear explanations for all 4 parameters: index name, field mappings, settings (shards, replicas), and aliases. The example further illustrates usage with concrete values, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an index (specific verb+resource), though it's in Chinese ('创建索引' means 'create index'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_create_with_write_alias' or 'index_clone', but the purpose is unambiguous. The description goes beyond a tautology by listing parameters and providing an example.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'index_create_with_write_alias' or 'index_clone' is provided. The description only lists parameters and an example, with no context about prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if the index already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns a scroll_id for subsequent retrieval, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read/write operation, performance implications, error conditions, or how the scrolling mechanism works. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool that initiates data traversal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list and return value note. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, though the formatting with line breaks could be cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complex functionality (initiating scroll searches), the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details about the scrolling mechanism, error handling, performance considerations, and how it integrates with 'scroll_next' and 'scroll_clear'. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for proper agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description compensates well by listing all parameters with Chinese labels: 'index: 索引名称', 'query: 查询条件', 'size: 每批数量', 'scroll: 滚动上下文保持时间', 'sort: 排序规则'. This provides semantic meaning for each parameter beyond what the bare schema offers, though it doesn't explain format details or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '开始滚动搜索（用于遍历大量数据）' translates to 'Start scrolling search (for traversing large amounts of data)'. This specifies the verb ('start scrolling search') and resource ('large amounts of data'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_simple' beyond mentioning scrolling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('用于遍历大量数据' - for traversing large amounts of data) and mentions a return value ('返回 scroll_id 用于后续获取' - returns scroll_id for subsequent retrieval), which hints at its role in a multi-step process. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search' or how it relates to sibling tools 'scroll_clear' and 'scroll_next'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation tool (implies mutation), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, if policies are immediately active, what happens on conflicts, or if there are rate limits. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain system behavior beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, example) and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter list is lengthy (necessary given 12 parameters). The example is helpful but could be more concise. Overall efficient for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job with parameters but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure, policy ID, etc.), doesn't cover error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a complex creation tool with no structured metadata, this is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It lists all 12 parameters with clear Chinese explanations, specifies defaults for indices, creation_schedule, and others, and provides meaningful context about what each parameter controls (e.g., '要备份的索引', '创建快照的 cron 表达式'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '创建快照生命周期策略' (create snapshot lifecycle policy), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slm_policy_delete, slm_policy_get, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like ilm_policy_create or snapshot_create beyond the 'slm' prefix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a repository first), when this tool is appropriate versus manual snapshot creation, or how it relates to other SLM tools like slm_policy_start/stop. The example shows usage but doesn't explain context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While '获取正在执行的任务列表' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clear parameter section with brief but informative explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks important context about when to use this tool versus siblings, behavioral characteristics, and expected output format. For a task listing tool in what appears to be an Elasticsearch/Opensearch context, more guidance about the tool's role in the ecosystem would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all 5 parameters with practical examples: '动作过滤（支持通配符）如 cluster:* 或 indices:data/write/*' for actions, '是否显示详细信息' for detailed, '父任务 ID' for parent_task_id, '节点过滤' for nodes, and '分组方式 nodes/parents/none' for group_by. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取正在执行的任务列表' (Get the list of tasks being executed). This is a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('正在执行的任务列表' - list of tasks being executed). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_get' or 'cat_tasks', which appear to be related task management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are multiple sibling tools related to tasks (tasks_cancel, tasks_get, cat_tasks), but the description doesn't explain how this 'tasks_list' differs from those or when it should be preferred. The parameter documentation doesn't substitute for usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '创建索引模板' (creates index template) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The example shows a basic usage but lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and example. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with complex nested objects. The Chinese text is efficient, though the example could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks crucial behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system impacts. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 5 parameters with clear explanations of what each represents. It provides specific details like '模板内容（mappings、settings、aliases）' for the template parameter and includes a comprehensive example showing actual usage with concrete values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an index template with specific parameters (name, index_patterns, template, priority, composed_of). It distinguishes from siblings like template_delete and template_get by specifying creation rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other template-related tools beyond the basic verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus other template management approaches, or any constraints on usage. The example shows usage but doesn't provide contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a creation operation (mutating) and provides extensive examples showing the structure of policy configurations. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether policies are immediately active, error conditions, or what happens if a policy with the same ID already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for parameters, examples, and common actions. However, it's quite lengthy due to the detailed examples. While the examples are helpful, they dominate the description and could potentially be streamlined. The core purpose statement is clear but buried among the examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's functionality. The examples provide concrete usage patterns, and the common actions section helps users understand what can be configured. The main gaps are the lack of behavioral context (permissions, error handling) and no output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 6 parameters with their Chinese names and providing two comprehensive examples showing exactly how to structure the hot, warm, cold, and delete phase configurations. The '常用 actions' (common actions) section further explains the semantic meaning of various actions that can be used within the phase configurations, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states '创建 ILM 策略' (Create ILM policy) which specifies the verb (create) and resource (ILM policy). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ilm_policy_delete, ilm_policy_get, ilm_add_policy, and ilm_remove_policy by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from slm_policy_create (snapshot lifecycle management) which might be conceptually similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of ilm_add_policy (which applies an existing policy), or how it relates to other ILM operations. The examples show usage patterns but don't provide contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the two behavioral changes: setting index to read-only and migrating shards to one node. However, it doesn't mention potential impacts like downtime, performance implications, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if the operation fails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, action description, and parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place, though the Chinese formatting with line breaks could be slightly more compact. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and parameters, but doesn't cover error conditions, return values, prerequisites, or side effects. Given the complexity of index preparation operations, more completeness would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'index' is the index name, and 'target_node' is optional with clear default behavior ('不传则使用第一个数据节点' - if not provided, uses the first data node). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '准备索引用于收缩' (prepare index for shrink) and specifies the two actions it performs: setting the index to read-only and migrating all shards to the same node. It distinguishes from siblings like index_shrink by being a prerequisite step, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other index management tools like index_set_readonly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating this is a '前置条件' (prerequisite) for shrink operations, suggesting it should be used before index_shrink. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for similar operations. The relationship to index_shrink is implied but not explicitly stated as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 key behavioral traits: the tool shrinks an index (mutating operation), requires specific preconditions (read-only source, shards on same node), and creates a new target index. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether the source index is modified/deleted, what happens to data during shrinking, permissions needed, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: purpose statement first, then parameter list, then important note. Each section earns its place. The only minor issue is some whitespace formatting, but the content itself is efficient with zero redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and key prerequisites. However, for a tool that modifies index structure, it should ideally explain more about the shrinking process, what happens to the source index, and what the tool returns. The absence of output schema increases the need for return value description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides Chinese parameter names and brief explanations: 'source: 源索引名称' (source index name), 'target: 目标索引名称' (target index name), 'settings: 目标索引设置' (target index settings). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for the settings object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '收缩索引（减少分片数）' translates to 'shrink index (reduce number of shards)'. This specifies both the verb ('shrink') and resource ('index') with the specific outcome of reducing shard count. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_split' (which increases shards) or 'index_clone' (which copies without shrinking).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context with the '注意' (Note) section stating prerequisites: source index must be read-only and all shards must be on the same node. This implies when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'index_clone' or 'index_split', nor does it specify when NOT to use it beyond the prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the diagnostic purpose and parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it affects system performance during sampling, or any rate limits. The description provides basic context but lacks crucial operational details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the purpose, lists parameters with clear explanations, and ends with usage context. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with blank lines could be slightly cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and good parameter coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral context about safety, performance impact, or operational constraints. For a diagnostic tool that samples thread activity, more guidance about when and how to use it safely would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all four parameters in Chinese: node_id (节点 ID), threads (每个节点显示的线程数 - threads per node), interval (采样间隔 - sampling interval), and type (线程类型 cpu/wait/block - thread type). It even specifies valid values for the 'type' parameter. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取节点热点线程' (Get node hot threads) with the specific context of '用于诊断 CPU 高占用问题' (Used for diagnosing high CPU usage problems). It provides a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('节点热点线程' - node hot threads) with a clear diagnostic purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nodes_info or nodes_stats that also provide node information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating the tool is '用于诊断 CPU 高占用问题' (used for diagnosing high CPU usage problems), which gives context about when this tool would be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes (like nodes_stats for general node statistics). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it describes what statistics can be retrieved, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the statistics are returned in. The description provides basic functional information but lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and examples. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. The Chinese text is concise and each sentence serves a clear purpose, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a statistics retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't describe the return format, potential data volume, error conditions, or how this tool relates to similar statistical tools in the sibling list. The parameter coverage is strong, but overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all three parameters: node_id (optional node identifier), metric (specific statistical categories with enumerated values), and index_metric (index-specific statistics with enumerated values). The examples further clarify how parameters interact, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取节点统计信息' (Get node statistics), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'nodes_info' or 'index_stats', which appear to provide related but different statistical information about nodes or indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage examples that imply when to use different parameter combinations, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'nodes_info' or 'cluster_stats'. The examples show different calling patterns but lack explicit guidance about tool selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'size: 返回文档数（默认 0，仅返回聚合结果）' (returns document count, default 0, only returns aggregation results), which provides important behavioral context about the default behavior. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the actual return format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and three practical examples. Each example demonstrates a different use case. While comprehensive, it maintains focus without unnecessary verbosity. The Chinese text is direct and each section serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining parameter semantics and providing usage examples. It covers the essential 'how-to' aspects well. The main gap is the lack of information about the return format, which would be particularly important given the complex nature of aggregation results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear parameter explanations in Chinese: '索引名称' (index name), '聚合定义' (aggregation definition), '过滤条件（可选）' (filter conditions, optional), and '返回文档数（默认 0，仅返回聚合结果）' (return document count, default 0, only returns aggregation results). The three detailed examples further illustrate how to use the 'aggs' parameter with different aggregation types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '执行聚合查询' (execute aggregation query), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'search' or 'count' by focusing on aggregation operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'aggregate_simple' which appears to be a sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through the three examples showing different aggregation scenarios (grouping statistics, multi-level aggregation, date histogram). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregate_simple' or 'search', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation that makes the index unavailable for reads and writes ('无法读写'), but preserves the data ('保留数据'). This covers the essential safety profile (makes index inaccessible but doesn't delete data) that annotations would normally provide. It doesn't mention side effects like impact on cluster state or whether reopening is possible, but covers the core behavioral impact adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It uses exactly two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and behavioral effect, and one documenting the parameter. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the most important information first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers what the tool does, its behavioral impact (makes index unavailable but preserves data), and documents the parameter. Given the tool's relative simplicity (one required parameter, clear destructive action), the description feels complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning whether the operation is reversible or has prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'index' with Chinese label '索引名称' (index name). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format requirements, constraints, or examples that would be helpful given the complete lack of schema descriptions. The parameter documentation is minimal but correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('关闭索引' meaning 'close index') and the resource ('索引' meaning 'index'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'index_open' by describing the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other index management tools like 'index_delete' or 'index_set_readonly' beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating '关闭后无法读写，但保留数据' (after closing, cannot read/write but data is preserved), which suggests when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like 'index_delete' (which would remove data) or 'index_set_readonly' (which might allow reads). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic behavioral effect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing a critical behavioral trait: '只能添加字段，不能修改已有字段' (can only add fields, cannot modify existing fields). This is essential context for a mutation operation. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a purpose statement, parameter list, and example. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more informative about typical usage patterns. The information is front-loaded with the core constraint stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It explains parameters and a key constraint, but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the complexity, it should ideally mention typical response format or success indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters in Chinese: '索引名称' (index name), '字段定义' (field definitions), and '动态映射策略 true/false/strict' (dynamic mapping strategy). It provides clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the structure of 'properties' object or 'dynamic' enum values beyond the listed options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('更新索引映射' - update index mapping) and resource ('索引' - index), with a crucial behavioral constraint ('只能添加字段，不能修改已有字段' - can only add fields, cannot modify existing fields). This distinguishes it from other index-related tools like index_create or index_get_mapping by specifying its exact mutation scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the behavioral constraint about adding vs. modifying fields, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_create (for initial mapping) or index_put_settings (for other index changes). No sibling tool comparisons or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a creation/mutation operation but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing indices/aliases, error conditions, or what happens to existing data. The rollover precondition hint is useful context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, parameter definitions, and example. Each section earns its place. It could be slightly more concise by combining some elements, but the information density is high with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation and usage context but lacks important behavioral details. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system implications. The rollover precondition hint helps but doesn't fully address the complexity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear parameter documentation in Chinese: names, purposes, and format guidance (建议使用 name-000001 格式 - suggested format name-000001). It includes a concrete example showing how to use the tool with actual parameter values, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an index with a writable alias, specifying both the action (创建/creates) and the resource (带可写别名的索引/index with writable alias). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'index_create' by explicitly mentioning the writable alias functionality and rollover precondition context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('rollover 的前置条件' - precondition for rollover), which helps differentiate it from basic index creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the resource-intensive nature of the operation and recommends off-peak execution, which are valuable behavioral insights. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects search performance during execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, lists parameters with clear explanations, and ends with an important usage note. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a potentially destructive index operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does quite well. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters meaningfully, and provides critical behavioral guidance about resource intensity. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but for a tool with good parameter documentation and usage guidance, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter in Chinese: '索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional), '合并到的最大段数' (maximum number of segments to merge to), and '仅清除已删除文档' (only expunge deleted documents). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '强制合并索引段' (force merge index segments), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like index_refresh or index_flush that also perform index maintenance operations, though the 'force merge' terminology is distinctive within the Elasticsearch context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contextual guidance with '注意：这是资源密集型操作，建议在低峰期执行' (Note: This is a resource-intensive operation, recommended to execute during off-peak hours). This gives important when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling index management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation (setting or unsetting readonly status) and mentions the prerequisite relationship to other operations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential impacts on indexing/search operations, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, parameter documentation, and examples in separate sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences. The only minor improvement would be integrating the prerequisite information more seamlessly rather than as a parenthetical note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameters well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or system behavior changes. The prerequisite information is valuable but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly documenting both parameters: 'index' as the index name and 'readonly' as a boolean where True sets to readonly and False cancels readonly. The description provides complete parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema offers, including the meaning of both boolean values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('设置索引为只读' - set index to readonly) and resource ('索引' - index). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning this is a prerequisite for clone/split/shrink operations, which helps differentiate it from other index management tools like index_close, index_open, or index_get_settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage context by stating this is a '前置条件' (prerequisite) for clone/split/shrink operations. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives - specifically before performing those three specific operations on indices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![easysearch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cloudsmithy/easysearch-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cloudsmithy/easysearch-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![easysearch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cloudsmithy/easysearch-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cloudsmithy/easysearch-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cloudsmithy/easysearch-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server