index_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the statistics are returned in, whether it's a real-time or cached view, or any rate limits. For a statistics tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 brief but could be better structured. The purpose statement is clear, but the parameter documentation uses a bullet-like format that's slightly awkward. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, but the formatting could be cleaner for better readability.

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 (2 parameters, statistics retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about what statistics are returned, their format, or behavioral considerations. For a statistics tool without structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.

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 provides valuable parameter semantics beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'index' is optional and provides the name, and crucially lists all possible values for the 'metric' parameter (docs/store/indexing/get/search/merge/refresh/flush/warmer/query_cache/fielddata/completion/segments/translog). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions and enum constraints.

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 as '获取索引统计信息' (get index statistics), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cat_indices', 'index_segments', or 'cluster_stats' that might provide related statistical information, preventing a perfect score.

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 that could provide statistical or index-related information (cat_indices, index_segments, cluster_stats, nodes_stats, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different statistical needs.

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