ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys single-file scope but says nothing about side effects: where ingested content goes, whether re-ingesting overwrites, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key scoping constraint (one file, local, explicitly selected) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is under-specified rather than over-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?

Three required parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only source of information and it omits nearly everything. An agent cannot reliably form a correct call from this alone.

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 description coverage is 0% for three required parameters. The description's "local" hints that path is a filesystem path, but project and jac_version are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

"Ingest one explicitly selected local Markdown/text/Jac file" names a verb and a resource, and the word "explicitly" hints at a deliberate user action. However, "ingest" is opaque about what actually happens to the file, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling tools context and validate.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus context or validate, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance. The phrase "explicitly selected" implies the caller must already have chosen a file, but that is inference, not guidance.

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