Ciso Ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the write side effect (creating typed OWL nodes), attachment blob storage, the best-effort contract, and the exact degraded return value {"ingested": null}. It omits idempotency, duplicate handling, and permission requirements, which matter for a tool that writes into a graph.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the mapping and failure-mode details in order of importance. The CONCEPT tag is internal jargon but short; no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only documents the failure return shape ({"ingested": null}) and never describes what a successful ingestion returns, nor whether repeated calls duplicate nodes. For a three-parameter write-style tool that gap leaves the agent guessing about the main outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so kind, params_json, and ingest_attachments are already fully documented in the input schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning, chiefly the OWL node each kind maps to and the evidences/Document-plus-blob case that relates to ingest_attachments.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'List a CISO Assistant GRC record kind and natively ingest it into epistemic-graph', then names the concrete target node types. This is unmistakably distinct from every ciso_assistant_api_* CRUD sibling, which the agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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 makes the selection context clear: this is the graph-ingestion path, not the REST CRUD path, and 'Best-effort' sets expectations for the call. It does not, however, state explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer ciso_assistant_api_*_list plus a separate write), so it stops 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.