index_refresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the outcome ('make recently written documents searchable') but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (likely mutating based on 'refresh'), performance impact (e.g., resource-intensive), permissions required, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a parameter section. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter note into the main description for better flow.

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 (index refresh operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but misses behavioral details (e.g., side effects, performance) and doesn't explain return values. For a mutation-like tool, this leaves gaps in completeness.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'index' is optional and defaults to refreshing all indices if not provided. With 0% schema description coverage (schema only has title 'Index' and type 'string'), this compensates well by clarifying usage semantics, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., index naming rules).

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 tool's purpose: '刷新索引（使最近写入的文档可搜索）' translates to 'Refresh index (make recently written documents searchable).' This specifies the verb (refresh), resource (index), and outcome (make documents searchable). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_flush' or 'index_forcemerge,' which may have overlapping or related functions in the Elasticsearch context.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., after bulk writes), exclusions (e.g., not needed for real-time search), or comparisons to siblings like 'index_flush' or 'index_forcemerge.' This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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