index_exists

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 the tool checks for index existence but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'exists' means (e.g., only primary indices, includes aliases?), whether it requires specific permissions, response format details, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational 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 concise with two lines: purpose statement and parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. However, the parameter section uses minimal formatting and could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimal approach is somewhat acceptable. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more context about behavior, usage scenarios, and parameter details to be complete. The current description leaves significant gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds a parameter section listing 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which gives basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, allowed characters, or relationship to other tools' index parameters. It compensates somewhat but not fully for the schema gap.

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 '检查索引是否存在' (Check if index exists), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose as a verification operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'index_get' or 'cat_indices' that might also provide index information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to indices (index_get, index_get_settings, cat_indices, etc.), there's no indication whether this is for existence checking only versus retrieving metadata or listing indices. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.

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