d_ann_config

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

The description adds context that 'stats' is a view action, 'set_ef_search' tunes a parameter, and 'rebuild' forces a rebuild. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict any annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors like whether actions are reversible or require permissions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the overall purpose and then lists actions with concise parenthetical explanations. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an enum, the description covers all actions and hints at the efSearch parameter. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists. It briefly touches on use cases ('tune search accuracy/speed'). A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that efSearch only applies to 'set_ef_search', though the schema clarifies this.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (action enumeration and efSearch range). The main description repeats the action list but does not add new meaning or clarify parameter relationships beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Configure and monitor the ANN (Approximate Nearest Neighbor) search index.' It then enumerates the specific actions ('stats', 'set_ef_search', 'rebuild') with brief explanations, making the tool's function unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the unique action set is distinct.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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