request_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a request (not immediate), that it's reviewed, and typical turnaround time (24 hours). It does not mention authentication or rate limits but covers the core behavior well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use, what to pass, and outcome. 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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown), explanation of return values is unnecessary. The description covers the action, context, and outcome. However, it omits mention of the effort parameter and could clarify that the request is for documents not already in the corpus.

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 description must compensate. It specifies that the 'request' parameter should be a single string containing document details. However, it does not describe the 'effort' parameter, which may lead to confusion. The instruction 'Pass ONE string' could be misinterpreted as ignoring the second parameter.

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: requesting a document to be added to the corpus. It distinguishes from sibling search_docs by explicitly stating this tool does not search. The verb 'request' and resource 'document to be added' are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when search_docs returns no confident match for specific materials) and when not to (use search_docs for searching). Also provides guidance on what to include in the request string and mentions SLA (24 hours).

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