lifedb_ingest_jsonl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency via payload_hash=sha256(source|payload_ref|ts_start)[:16], that repeated runs have zero side effects, and that the default mode is a non-mutating preview. It omits auth/permission requirements and error/partial-failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, each load-bearing: format requirements, idempotency guarantee, and dry-run workflow. The safety-relevant dry_run default is front-loaded in a scannable way.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the essential behaviors for a mutation tool (idempotency, default preview, input format). Only permission/error-handling context is absent, which keeps it just short of 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%, so the description must compensate: it explains dry_run's default-and-override semantics precisely and constrains the path input to a JSONL file with required per-line fields. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it does not describe path format/paths conventions.

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 (导入/ingest) and resource (统一 JSONL 事件文件), and even specifies the record schema (每行一个 JSON, ts_start/modality/source 必填). It is clearly distinguished from the read-oriented siblings (stats/query/export) as the single write/ingest path.

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?

Gives a clear operational workflow: default dry_run=True produces a preview, and writing only happens when dry_run=false is passed explicitly. This tells the agent how to use the tool safely, though it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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