alias_create

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.