aci_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It volunteers useful details: processing is incremental, on-device, and cheap to re-run. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or potential long initial indexing time, but the disclosed behavior is genuinely informative.

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 four sentences with no filler; each sentence contributes distinct value: primary action, usage triggers, behavioral characteristics, and a parameter constraint. It is compact and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter ingest tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, key behavior, and parameter guidance. It omits output/return behavior, but that is a minor gap for an ingest operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful clarification that the path must be an absolute FOLDER path and not a single file, but full_resync is left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb (Index), a clear resource (a FOLDER on the user's machine into their ACI memory), and the outcome (documents become recallable in future sessions). This clearly differentiates it from retrieval-focused siblings like aci_recall.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases ('remember everything in this folder', 'index my Cases folder', 'learn my documents') that tell an agent when to use it. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it is slightly short of a 5.

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