cat_indices

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.