ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behaviors (extract concepts, build links, mark contradictions) and implies the side effect of creating a Wiki page, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, reversibility, or other side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core behavior efficiently. It avoids fluff and includes a parenthetical that adds key detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The presence of an output schema likely covers return values, and the one-parameter schema is simple. However, the description does not explain integration with sibling tools, such as whether ingest already updates the wiki index or whether rebuild_index must be called separately.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter raw_path, which already includes a description and example. The tool description adds marginal value by linking 'raw material' to the parameter, but does not provide substantive additional semantics.

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 compiles a raw material into a Wiki page, with specific processing actions: extracting concepts, creating links, and marking contradictions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like write_wiki, read_wiki, and rebuild_index.

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 implies usage for raw materials that need to be converted into Wiki pages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_wiki. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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