knowledge_ingest_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'supported source files' without listing what is supported, says 'recursively' as if it were fixed even though the schema exposes a recursive flag, and says nothing about re-ingesting already-indexed files, overwrite/dedup behavior, auth needs, or cost on large trees.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler. However, the brevity is achieved partly by omitting necessary information rather than by trimming redundancy, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an un-annotated recursive parameter, the description leaves key questions unanswered: which extensions count as supported, what happens on re-ingest, and what the call returns. It is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 67%: path and extensions are documented in the schema, while recursive has no schema description beyond a default. The description's 'recursively' and 'supported source files' gesture at the recursive and extensions parameters but add no format details or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (ingest), modifier (recursively), and resource (supported source files from a directory). The word 'directory' implicitly separates it from knowledge_ingest_file and knowledge_ingest_text, but the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling ingest tools (knowledge_ingest_file, knowledge_ingest_text) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer that a directory target selects this tool.

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