cluster_reroute

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. '手动重新路由分片' (manual rerouting of shards) implies a potentially disruptive administrative operation, but the description doesn't disclose risks, permissions required, cluster state implications, or whether this can cause downtime. The dry_run parameter hints at safety testing but isn't explained behaviorally.

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 core purpose. The parameter explanations and examples are directly relevant. Minor deduction because the Chinese/English mix creates some redundancy, but overall structure is 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?

For a complex administrative tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains parameters well but lacks critical context about when to use it, what permissions are needed, potential cluster impacts, return values, or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'commands: 路由命令列表' (routing command list) and 'dry_run: 是否仅模拟执行' (whether to only simulate execution). The examples provide concrete syntax for move and cancel operations, adding significant value 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 'manually reroutes shards' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_health or cluster_settings by focusing on shard routing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cluster_allocation_explain which also deals with shard allocation.

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 prerequisites, when manual rerouting is appropriate versus automatic rebalancing, or what conditions warrant its use. The examples show how to use it but not when.

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