pinecone_describe_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the specific fields returned (dimension, metric, status, host), which is good for a read operation. It does not mention error handling or authentication requirements, but the schema already includes the api_key parameter.

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 sentence that conveys the purpose and return fields. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful list of return fields (dimension, metric, status, host). For a simple describe operation, this is sufficiently complete. Missing details on status enumeration, but that is acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the api_key or index_name further, but the schema descriptions are already clear.

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 retrieves details (dimension, metric, status, host) for a Pinecone index. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'details for a Pinecone index' are unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like pinecone_delete_vectors (delete operations) and pinecone_list_indexes (listing all indexes).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pinecone_list_indexes for getting a list of indexes, pinecone_query_vectors for querying). However, the distinct purpose is implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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