index_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. '打开索引' doesn't reveal whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, what happens if the index is already open, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that presumably changes index state, this lack of transparency is critical.

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 under-specification. While it's structured with a purpose statement and parameter listing, every sentence fails to earn its place by providing insufficient information. The conciseness is more a symptom of missing content than effective communication.

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's likely complexity (changing index state), complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'opening' an index entails, what the operation achieves, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves the agent without essential context.

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 'index: 索引名称' (index: index name), which merely translates the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this minimal information doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid index name, format requirements, or how this parameter affects the operation.

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 '打开索引' (open index) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_open' in Chinese. While it identifies the resource (index), it lacks specificity about what 'opening' means operationally. Compared to sibling tools like 'index_close' or 'index_create', it doesn't clearly differentiate what makes this action distinct from related index operations.

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 like 'index_close', 'index_create', 'index_get', and 'index_exists', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this tool should be selected over other index-related operations. The agent receives no usage direction.

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