kb_add_urls

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

The description discloses asynchronous behavior (returns a job id), the scraping and ingestion process, and the metadata hash applied to every document. With no annotations to carry safety or behavior hints, these details meaningfully raise transparency, though failure modes and auth are not covered.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core action first, then return behavior and a metadata nuance. Every word contributes, and the description is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 the lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: add URLs, get job id, poll kb_get_status. It would benefit from mentioning config or edge cases, but is largely complete for a straightforward ingestion tool among siblings.

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 implies semantics for urls (each becomes its own document) and metadata (same hash applied to all), but does not explain project_id, collection_id, or config. This adds value over the raw schema but leaves significant gaps.

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 'Add one or more webpage URLs to a KB' with each URL scraped and ingested as its own document. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_add_file and kb_create_direct_upload, which handle other ingestion methods.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (adding URLs, each becoming a document) and explicitly instructs to poll kb_get_status for per-document completion. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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