index_shrink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool shrinks an index (mutating operation), requires specific preconditions (read-only source, shards on same node), and creates a new target index. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether the source index is modified/deleted, what happens to data during shrinking, permissions needed, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured: purpose statement first, then parameter list, then important note. Each section earns its place. The only minor issue is some whitespace formatting, but the content itself is efficient with zero redundant sentences.

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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and key prerequisites. However, for a tool that modifies index structure, it should ideally explain more about the shrinking process, what happens to the source index, and what the tool returns. The absence of output schema increases the need for return value description.

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 must compensate. It provides Chinese parameter names and brief explanations: 'source: 源索引名称' (source index name), 'target: 目标索引名称' (target index name), 'settings: 目标索引设置' (target index settings). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for the settings object.

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: '收缩索引（减少分片数）' translates to 'shrink index (reduce number of shards)'. This specifies both the verb ('shrink') and resource ('index') with the specific outcome of reducing shard count. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'index_split' (which increases shards) or 'index_clone' (which copies without shrinking).

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 some usage context with the '注意' (Note) section stating prerequisites: source index must be read-only and all shards must be on the same node. This implies when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'index_clone' or 'index_split', nor does it specify when NOT to use it beyond the prerequisites.

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