list_aliases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the operation is a read-only listing across the entire cluster and reveals what information the result includes. It does not address edge cases like empty clusters or permissions, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and output in under fifteen words. Every word adds meaning and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema provided, the description is essentially complete: it names the resource (index aliases), scope (cluster), and result (target indices). It could name a sibling alternative or mention behavior when no aliases exist, but those are minor gaps for this simple operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than inputs. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 specifies a concrete verb-resource pair ('List all index aliases in the cluster') and a clear result ('showing which indices they point to'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indices or get_index_mapping without relying on the tool name alone.

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 implies when to use this tool by mentioning aliases and cluster scope, but it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings or states when not to use it. An agent must infer the alternative from the sibling list (e.g., list_indices for indices).

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