cat_recovery

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 only states what the tool does ('获取分片恢复状态') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate as it lacks critical operational details.

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 details. It uses minimal sentences (two lines) with no wasted words, making it efficient. A slight deduction as the structure could be more polished (e.g., bullet points), but it's clear and direct.

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 complexity (monitoring recovery status), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether it's safe for frequent use. For a tool in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 both parameters: 'index: 索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional) and 'active_only: 仅显示进行中的恢复' (only show ongoing recovery). This clarifies purpose beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage and only provides titles. Since there are 2 parameters and the description covers them adequately, it compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 a clear purpose: '获取分片恢复状态' (Get shard recovery status). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '分片恢复状态' (shard recovery status), which is specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_recovery' or 'cat_shards', which might have overlapping functionality in an Elasticsearch context, preventing a perfect 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. There are no explicit instructions, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools (e.g., 'cat_shards', 'index_recovery') that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.