cat_shards

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 '分片状态、大小、所在节点等' (shard status, size, node location, etc.), which gives some behavioral context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value description. Each sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more effectively.

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 monitoring tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameters, the description provides basic purpose and return information. However, it lacks important context about the tool's scope (cluster-wide vs index-specific behavior when parameter is omitted), performance characteristics, and how it differs from similar 'cat_' tools in the sibling list.

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 mentions the 'index' parameter is optional and provides its purpose ('索引名称' - index name). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or explain what happens when the parameter is omitted versus provided.

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 '获取分片分布信息' (get shard distribution information), which provides a basic verb+resource purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like cat_indices, cat_nodes, or cat_segments that also provide cluster information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'cat_' tools available (cat_aliases, cat_allocation, cat_indices, etc.), the description doesn't indicate what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice over other cluster monitoring tools.

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