indexing-get-search-index

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so richly: IndexingState is reliable, the Summary fields come from the search provider and are 'not dependable everywhere,' and the XM Cloud CM Solr-core case explains why NumberOfDocuments reads 0 and IsHealthy false on a healthy index. This is exactly the kind of environment-specific caveat structured fields cannot express.

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 in the first clause, followed by the operational caveats in descending usefulness. It is denser and longer than typical, but each sentence (filtering guidance, reliability caveat, XM Cloud example, verification step) carries distinct actionable content rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back, and it does: it names IndexingState and the Summary fields (NumberOfDocuments, IsHealthy, IsClean, OutOfDateIndex) and qualifies their trustworthiness. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret its result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'full' and 'name' (wildcards, omit-for-all, diagnostics-only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the rationale that Get-SearchIndex accepts no additional filter, which is mild added meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get information about Sitecore search indexes') plus the addressing mechanism ('addressed by name'). It is clearly separable from siblings like indexing-find-item, indexing-rebuild-search-index, and indexing-set-search-index-state, which perform query, rebuild, and state-change operations respectively.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that SPE's Get-SearchIndex takes no other filter and that filtering must be done on returned rows instead of on the CM. It also gives a concrete escalation path ('Run an actual query with indexing-find-item before concluding an index is broken'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-trust-the-output are covered.

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