ingest_new_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits; it only mentions forcing re-ingestion without covering side effects, permissions, or handling of the force_reindex flag. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's impact.

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 concise, using two short sentences that quickly convey the purpose and context without unnecessary words.

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 tool has no annotations and the description fails to cover parameters or side effects, leaving the 2-parameter tool under-described even though an output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'path' or 'force_reindex' parameters, offering no semantics beyond the raw schema field names.

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's function: forcing re-ingestion of new or modified PDFs, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools (search, list, statistics). The verb and resource are specific, and it notes the automatic vs manual context.

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?

It provides context that ingestion is normally automatic via a watcher but can be manually invoked, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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