index_segments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('获取索引段信息') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list, which is efficient. However, the purpose statement is overly vague and doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context. The structure is clean but under-specified, making it more of a minimal placeholder than a helpful description.

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 implied by the sibling tools (e.g., Elasticsearch-related operations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'segments' are in this context, what information is returned, how to interpret results, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 includes a parameter section listing 'index: 索引名称（可选）' (index: index name (optional)), which adds basic semantics about the parameter being optional and its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter documented, the description provides minimal value beyond what the schema already indicates through the 'default: null' property. It doesn't explain what happens when the index is omitted or provide examples of valid index names.

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 '获取索引段信息' (Get index segment information), which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_segments'. While it indicates a retrieval action, it doesn't specify what kind of segment information is retrieved or how this differs from similar tools like 'cat_segments' or 'index_stats' in the sibling list. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from related tools.

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 multiple sibling tools related to indices and segments (e.g., 'cat_segments', 'index_stats', 'index_get'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what scenarios it's designed for. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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