al4_ingest_file

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

Discloses async operation, return of ingest ID, and notification queue, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden—adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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 8 parameters, async behavior, and no output schema, the description omits details about return value format, polling mechanism, and usage of optional parameters. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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?

Description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema's sparse descriptions for file_path and notification_queue. With 38% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for undocumented parameters like name, services, or metadata.

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?

Clearly states verb 'ingest', resource 'local file', and async behavior. Mentions 'preferred for high-volume workflows' and distinguishes from siblings that ingest by hash or URL.

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?

Explicitly recommends for high-volume workflows and implies async nature, but does not provide exclusions or compare to synchronous alternatives like al4_submit_file.

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