index_get

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 it 'gets index details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), potential performance impacts, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The mention of wildcard support for the index parameter adds some context but is minimal.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The structure is clear, though minor formatting issues (extra spaces) slightly reduce readability.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return values (mappings, settings, aliases details), error conditions, or how wildcards affect results. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'index' is the index name and supports wildcards, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't provide examples of wildcard usage or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '索引详情' (index details), specifying what information is retrieved (mappings, settings, aliases). It distinguishes from siblings like 'index_get_mapping' or 'index_get_settings' by indicating it retrieves multiple aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'index_exists' or 'cat_indices' in terms of scope or detail level.

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 are multiple sibling tools for index-related operations (e.g., 'index_get_mapping', 'index_get_settings', 'index_exists', 'cat_indices'), but no indication of when this comprehensive tool is preferred over more specific ones or when it should be avoided.

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