index_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool '获取索引恢复状态' (gets index recovery status), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 three lines: a purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the main function, and each sentence adds value without waste. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context such as output format, error handling, or usage scenarios. For a tool that interacts with system recovery status, more behavioral and contextual information is needed to be fully helpful.

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 parameters 'index' and 'active_only' with brief explanations in Chinese: '索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional) and '仅显示进行中的恢复' (only show ongoing recovery). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only provides titles 'Index' and 'Active Only'. The descriptions clarify optionality and the effect of 'active_only', compensating well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 '获取索引恢复状态' (Get index recovery status), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (index recovery status). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_recovery' or 'snapshot_restore' that might also relate to recovery operations, making it somewhat vague about its specific scope within the recovery domain.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cat_recovery' or 'snapshot_restore', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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