ListIndexTool

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains behavior for listing all indices vs specific patterns and detail control, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication prerequisites, or potential performance impacts.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and dive into details. No redundant or missing words. Efficient.

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 listing tool with 12 params (mostly auth), the description covers core behavior well. It explains output format (names vs metadata) but omits error handling, required permissions, or connection setup. Still, it's fairly complete given the presence of schema descriptions.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the include_detail and index parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. No enums or nested objects to clarify.

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 lists OpenSearch indices, optionally filtering by name/pattern, and controlling detail level with include_detail flag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like SearchIndexTool and GetShardsTool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for listing indices but does not mention when not to use or compare to siblings like ClusterHealthTool or SearchIndexTool.

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