homestead_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the multi-step behavior (read from disk, upload, wait for chunking/indexing, report result) and the supported file types. It doesn't cover failure modes or side effects, but the core blocking behavior and outcome are transparent.

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 with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the operation sequence follows, and compatibility/outcome are stated last. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle and result. It doesn't detail the exact report shape, but 'reports the result' combined with the clear workflow is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor useful context by stating that 'PDFs and text both work,' which clarifies accepted file_path values, but the schema already documents parameter purpose and defaults adequately.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Import a document into the Homestead Library.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by framing this as the ingest operation, with 'The document becomes searchable via homestead_search' tying it to the search sibling without conflating them.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to add a document to the library and make it searchable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow description and searchability outcome make the intended use unambiguous for an agent.

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