ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that content goes through normalization and deduplication before storage and supports source-specific formatting cleanup. These details add behavioral context beyond the basic operation, though it could mention more about side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a usage block. Every sentence adds value—purpose, processing details, and usage guidance. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and processing, but lacks detailed parameter explanations. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to use it, but less so for correctly setting all parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details, so completeness is adequate but not excellent.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions that tracking includes 'who said it, where, when' which hints at user, channel, source parameters, but does not explain each parameter's purpose or format. It adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving ambiguity for agents.

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 ingests content from external sources with source tracking, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by listing supported sources (Slack, Telegram, Git) and features (provenance tracking, normalization, deduplication). This provides a precise and actionable purpose.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS WHEN' and provides clear contexts (importing content from external sources with provenance tracking). It gives a good usage scenario but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of full guidance.

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