get_index

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is auto-stored, returned as an object ID preview, and that nested properties require object store tools, but says nothing about auth requirements, read-only nature, or error conditions beyond 'an error message'.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the entry mixes Sphinx-style ':param:'/':returns:' directives with prose and then spends three sentences on object store mechanics. Some redundancy between ':returns:' and the object-ID paragraphs.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the needed lifting by describing the return value ('index configuration or an error message') and the object-ID indirection pattern. It is nearly complete for this simple one-parameter read.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does document index_name as the 'Unique name of the index to fetch', which adds the uniqueness constraint but no format or naming convention details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('detailed configuration information for a specific index'), anchored by the unique index_name. It is clearly differentiated from list_indexes by the singular scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_indexes/update_index guidance, but the description does give downstream workflow direction ('Use the object store tools in combination with the object ID'). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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