cat_fielddata

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.