index_rollover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description doesn't disclose what 'rolling over' actually does behaviorally - whether it creates new indices, deletes old ones, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing data, or what the expected outcome is. The example shows parameters but doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond the basic action name.

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 reasonably concise with a title, parameter list, and example. However, it's not optimally front-loaded - the core purpose ('滚动索引') is too brief and vague, and the structure mixes Chinese and English inconsistently. The example is helpful but could be better integrated with explanatory text.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what rollover means in Elasticsearch context, what happens to the old index, whether this is part of ILM, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The parameter documentation is good, but overall context is lacking for proper agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 4 parameters with Chinese labels that clarify their purposes: alias (别名名称), conditions (滚动条件), settings (新索引设置), and mappings (新索引映射). The example further illustrates how conditions might be structured. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema which only provides generic titles like 'Conditions' and 'Settings'.

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 '滚动索引' (rollover index) which indicates the general action, but it's vague about what rolling over an index actually entails. It doesn't specify whether this creates new indices, renames existing ones, or manages index lifecycle. The description doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like index_create, index_delete, or ilm_* tools that might handle index lifecycle management.

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 for index management (index_create, index_delete, ilm_add_policy, etc.), there's no indication of when index rollover is appropriate versus creating new indices manually or using ILM policies. The example shows usage but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites.

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