index_get_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('获取索引映射') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the mapping information returns in, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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 extremely concise with just two lines, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted text, the structure with a title line and parameter list is clear but too minimal. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description needs more content to be genuinely helpful.

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 complexity of Elasticsearch index operations, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mapping' means in this context, what information is returned, whether this is a read-only operation, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool in a complex domain with many sibling tools, this minimal description 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?

The description lists the parameter 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Index'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter documented in the description, this provides minimal value. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a valid index name, whether wildcards are supported, or provide examples of index naming conventions.

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 '获取索引映射' (Get index mapping) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_get_mapping' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool retrieves mapping information for an index, it doesn't specify what 'mapping' means in this context or distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'index_get' or 'index_get_settings'. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'index_get', 'index_get_settings', 'cat_indices', and 'field_caps' that might retrieve related index information, there's no indication of when this specific mapping retrieval tool is appropriate versus other index inspection tools.

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