alias_get

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.