list_indexer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these. The description adds the explicit HTTP method (GET) and the raw endpoint path, providing a clear behavioral contract. No contradiction found; the description gives minimal but consistent context.

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 extremely concise—two short lines. It states the purpose and the endpoint with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse 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 has no parameters or nested objects, and an output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The main missing piece is a more explicit statement of what 'Read Indexer' returns, but that's covered by the output schema and the GET endpoint.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. However, it does not indicate what the response contains, but since it's a list operation, the output schema likely covers that, making this score 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?

The description 'Read Indexer' clearly indicates a read operation for the 'indexer' resource, and the GET endpoint confirms it. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by being specific to 'indexer', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_indexer_by_id (which is a single item fetch).

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 is minimal but the verb 'Read' and the endpoint suggest it's used to retrieve the indexer configuration. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like list_indexer_schema or list_indexerstats, but the resource name is clear enough for an agent to infer the main use case.

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