ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default incremental indexing, the option for full re-index via force, and extension filtering. It does not mention side effects like blocking or locking, but is transparent enough.

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 well-structured: a one-liner purpose, a usage note, then concise bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

Given there is an output schema (not shown), description need not explain returns. It covers when to use, parameter nuances, and default behavior. The context of working directory and auto-indexing is clearly provided.

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%, but the description adds thorough explanations for all three parameters, including default behavior, effect of include_extensions replacing defaults, and note about leading dots. This greatly exceeds the schema's content.

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 it 'manually trigger indexing of the current working directory', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'check_index_status' by focusing on triggering indexing.

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?

It tells users they 'rarely need this' due to auto-indexing, and explains when to use force or extensions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the nearly identical sibling 'ingest_current_directory'.

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