doc_index

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. While '写入文档' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, what permissions are required, whether it creates indices automatically, or what the response format looks like. The examples show basic usage but lack behavioral context.

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: purpose statement, parameter list with explanations, and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place, though the Chinese-only format might limit accessibility for non-Chinese speaking agents.

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 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It covers parameters reasonably well but misses critical behavioral context (error handling, response format, side effects) and doesn't explain the tool's role within the broader Elasticsearch sibling tool ecosystem.

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 compensates well by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations in Chinese. It clarifies that 'id' is optional (自动生成 if not provided) and shows refresh accepts true/false/wait_for values. The examples demonstrate practical usage with different parameter combinations, adding meaningful context 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 '写入文档' (write document) which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like doc_delete, doc_get, doc_update by focusing on document creation/indexing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from doc_bulk or doc_update which are also write operations.

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 like doc_bulk (for batch operations), doc_update (for modifications), or index_create (for index-level operations). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic examples.

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