ingest_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It discloses SSRF protection and refusal of private/internal URLs, and describes the linking behavior via 'mentions' relations. However, it does not clarify whether the tool persists the Knowledge Structure or only returns it, leaving side-effect ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds useful information.

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 simple single-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the primary function, output structure, and a key behavioral restriction. Minor gap: it doesn't state persistence or side-effects, but this is a relatively simple tool.

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 schema already documents the 'url' parameter as 'The publicly accessible URL to fetch', so coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful context by emphasizing public access and SSRF refusal, which clarifies failure conditions.

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 specific verbs 'Fetch', 'extract', and 'return' with a clear resource (public URL document) and states the result (Knowledge Structure). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like construct_knowledge or verify_source by focusing on external URL ingestion.

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 publicly accessible web documents but does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like construct_knowledge or verify_source. It provides a constraint (SSRF refusal) but no explicit 'when to use this tool' guidance.

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