indexing-get-search-index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get information'), which is helpful, but fails to mention critical aspects such as whether it returns detailed index metadata, pagination behavior, error handling for invalid filters, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get information about Sitecore search indexes') and succinctly adds filtering details. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure, or examples), error conditions, or operational constraints. While it covers the basic purpose and parameters, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 description lists the filterable attributes ('name, database, running status, or corrupted status'), which aligns with the input schema parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., 'name' supports wildcards). The description adds minimal value beyond restating parameter names, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get information about Sitecore search indexes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Sitecore search indexes'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'indexing-find-item' or 'indexing-initialize-search-index,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions filtering capabilities ('Can filter by name, database, running status, or corrupted status'), which implies usage for retrieving filtered index information. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'indexing-find-item' for item-level searches or 'indexing-initialize-search-index' for index management), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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