brain_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses idempotency and incremental behavior ('only changed files are re-embedded'), but does not mention potential side effects, configuration dependencies, or what happens if source files are removed. These behaviors would be useful but not critical for calling it.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key benefit (safe to call repeatedly) and the mechanism (incremental re-index with only changed files) are directly stated, making it very efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the key operational facts (what it indexes) and behavioral facts (idempotent, incremental). It doesn't connect to a larger workflow (e.g., 'run before using brain_search'), but the sibling list makes that context implicit. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'force' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not otherwise add any meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, even though the description does not mention it explicitly.

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') and resource ('configured source directories'), and adds 'incrementally/reindex' to distinguish from the read-only sibling tools like brain_search and brain_stats. An agent can immediately tell this is the ingestion tool.

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 notes that it is 'safe to call repeatedly', which is a usage hint, but it does not explicitly say when to use the tool verse the siblings or describe any exclusions. The sibling names make the distinction fairly clear, but no direct guidance is given.

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