graph_ingest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one substantive trait: extraction is limited to what is parsed and no decompilation occurs during ingestion, which usefully bounds cost and side effects. It says nothing about whether the operation is idempotent, what graph nodes/edges get created, how failures on malformed input are handled, or what the call returns.

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, no filler, and the negated behavior (no decompilation) is placed immediately after the purpose so the agent reads scope before mechanics. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

It covers what it ingests and one important non-behavior, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the agent guessing about side effects on the graph, result shape (node ids? counts?), and prerequisites. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not complete.

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 100% and the kind enum is documented in-schema, so the description adds nothing new about path, text or source. The enumeration of source types loosely mirrors the enum but provides no additional syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Ingest), enumerates the accepted source types (ELF, N64 ROM, symbol table), and names the destination (Knowledge Graph). That destination is what separates it from read-only siblings such as elf_inspect, rom_inspect and split_rom, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose ingestion over elf_inspect / rom_inspect, no statement of prerequisites (a loaded project, a workspace path), and no mention of how it relates to graph_node_upsert or graph_edge_upsert. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the description.

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