add_local_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the side effect that files 'will be indexed for search,' which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether an existing source with the same slug is overwritten, or error behavior for invalid paths, leaving notable gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clarifying note about HTML files, then a clear two-line Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 is relatively simple with two required parameters and an output schema (though not shown). The description covers the main action and side effect, but omits details like return value, error conditions, and idempotency. Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, a bit more behavioral context would make it more complete.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'path: Absolute filesystem path to the docs directory' and 'slug: Unique identifier for this local source.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names, though it stops short of specifying format constraints or validation rules.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a local directory as a documentation source.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool add_web_source by specifying 'local directory' and is concise and unambiguous.

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 context by noting the directory should contain HTML files and that indexing will occur, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide caveats (e.g., prerequisites, when not to use). Sibling tool names suggest differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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