get_indexer_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the ID does not exist. It only repeats the endpoint and parameter, providing no value beyond the structured annotations.

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, with only three lines. It is front-loaded with the purpose ('Read Indexer.') and then includes the endpoint and parameter list. Every part is relevant, though the raw URL might be redundant with the tool name, but it does not detract. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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 is a simple single-parameter read, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to call it correctly: it knows the action, the resource, and the parameter. The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety. However, it lacks usage guidance and fails to distinguish from similar tools, making the context incomplete in a broader sense.

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 for parameter semantics. It does state that 'id' is a path parameter, which clarifies its location, but it does not explain what the ID represents or any constraints beyond the schema's type and required status. This is minimal additional meaning; a bit more explanation about the indexer ID would be warranted.

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 'Read Indexer.' and provides the endpoint path, indicating a read operation on a specific indexer resource by ID. It is not a tautology and the verb 'Read' plus the resource 'Indexer' is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_config_indexer_by_id or list_indexer, which might also involve reading indexer-related data, so it misses explicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the HTTP verb and path without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. An agent would have to infer that this is the straightforward way to fetch an indexer by ID, but no explicit direction is given.

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