index_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states '创建索引' (create index) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The example shows usage but doesn't explain outcomes.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, parameter list, and example. The Chinese text is efficient, though the example is detailed. Every section adds value, but the purpose statement is minimal ('创建索引') and could be more descriptive.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity (nested objects, write operation), it's incomplete but not entirely inadequate.

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. It provides a Chinese parameter list ('参数:') with clear explanations for all 4 parameters: index name, field mappings, settings (shards, replicas), and aliases. The example further illustrates usage with concrete values, adding 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 tool creates an index (specific verb+resource), though it's in Chinese ('创建索引' means 'create index'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_create_with_write_alias' or 'index_clone', but the purpose is unambiguous. The description goes beyond a tautology by listing parameters and providing an example.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'index_create_with_write_alias' or 'index_clone' is provided. The description only lists parameters and an example, with no context about prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if the index already exists.

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