ingest_ideas_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal process (splitting into items, calling 'capture_idea') and implies that it is a write operation (creating ideas). However, it does not discuss potential side effects like duplicate detection, error handling for malformed files, or rate limits when calling the nested tool. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 efficient with 5 concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the primary purpose. The subsequent sentences provide necessary detail without redundancy. It could potentially be tightened, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it works, and the parameter. It mentions the internal call to 'capture_idea', which gives context. Minor gaps like idempotency or error states are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 on 'file_path', but the description compensates by explaining that it should be an absolute or METIS_RC_ROOT-relative path. It also lists supported file formats (.txt, .md, .docx). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, helping the agent format the parameter correctly.

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: 'Import an ideas document... and capture each idea.' It specifies the resource (ideas document) and action (import and capture). It also details the process (reads file, splits into items, calls capture_idea). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'capture_idea' or other scan tools, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it calls 'capture_idea' internally, but does not explain, for example, when a user should choose this over direct use of 'capture_idea' or other import tools. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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