cat_allocation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.