index_shard_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the information is returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-load critical information about what makes this tool unique. While not verbose, it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, missing opportunities to clarify usage in a compact way.

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 of Elasticsearch tools and the lack of annotations (0% coverage) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how it's structured, or any prerequisites or limitations. For a tool in a domain with many similar siblings, more context is needed to understand its role and output, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 two parameters with brief explanations: 'index' as optional index name and 'status' with allowed values (green/yellow/red/all). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details, so the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining what these parameters do (e.g., what 'status' filtering means in context) or providing examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't excel.

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 '获取分片存储信息' (Get shard storage information), which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'index_shard_stores' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about shard stores, it doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., status, allocation, details) or how this differs from sibling tools like cat_shards or index_segments that also provide shard-related information.

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 related to indices, shards, and cluster status (e.g., cat_shards, index_segments, cluster_health), there's no indication of what specific scenario or need this tool addresses that others don't. The parameter section lists options but doesn't explain the use cases for filtering by index or status.

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