Upload Webhound File

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, which aligns with the upload action. The description adds supported file types and a conversion requirement, but lacks details on size limits, authentication needs, or success/failure responses. The openWorldHint suggests variability, so the description provides moderate transparency.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and supported formats, followed by a critical usage note. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no required ones) and existence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects (file types, conversion) but omits how to combine parameters or the expected response shape. It's adequate for a simple tool but could be more comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It briefly mentions 'text' or base64 content and lists supported file types, but does not explain the role of each parameter (e.g., local_path vs files vs content_base64) or constraints. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 purpose: upload files of various formats (CSV, XLSX, PDF, etc.) for use in reports or datasets. It also notes conversion of legacy formats. There are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the purpose is distinct and well-defined.

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 provides a usage tip ('Convert legacy XLS/DOC files to XLSX/DOCX first') and implies the tool is a prerequisite for report/dataset tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context from sibling tools suggests no other upload option exists, making the guidance adequate.

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