create_indexerproxy_test

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-readOnly. The description adds nothing about the test semantics, whether a resource is actually created, or what 'force_test' does behaviorally. It only echoes the endpoint and refers to schema, leaving the agent to infer critical 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 concise and structured (endpoint, args) with no fluff. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance; it is efficient but fails to deliver meaningful content.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It omits the test-vs-create distinction, the purpose of 'force_test', and any differentiation from the large set of sibling create tools, leaving an agent likely to misuse it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'body' and says to read the GET or /schema endpoint to know fields – a useful pointer but not an explanation. 'force_test' is merely labeled as a query parameter with zero semantics. This barely meets the minimum for parameter understanding.

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 states 'Create IndexerProxy.' but the tool name 'create_indexerproxy_test' and endpoint '/test' imply a test operation, not a straightforward create. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'create_indexerproxy' or clarify what 'test' means (e.g., validate without persisting). The verb+resource is vague and ambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_indexerproxy, create_indexerproxy_testall, or the action-by-name variants. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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