index_flush

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 '刷新索引到磁盘' (flush index to disk), which implies a write operation that persists data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is safe during active operations, performance impact, or what happens when 'force' is used. The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter notes. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main function. However, the parameter section is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'flushing' entails operationally, the effects of the 'force' parameter, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely modifies index persistence, this lack of detail is 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 lists parameters 'index' and 'force' with brief Chinese notes ('索引名称（可选）' and '是否强制刷新'), but these add minimal semantic value beyond the schema's titles ('Index' and 'Force'). No details about format, constraints, or effects are provided, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 '刷新索引到磁盘' (flush index to disk), which provides a clear verb ('flush') and resource ('index'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'index_refresh' or 'index_forcemerge', which also operate on indices. The purpose is understandable 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 like 'index_refresh' or 'index_forcemerge'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual guidance.

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