ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main write behavior (indexing into vector and BM25 stores) but does not mention side effects, such as whether existing documents are replaced, whether indexing is incremental, if the directory is read recursively, or any permission requirements.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and packs in file types and target indexes efficiently.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. Gaps remain around usage timing, reindexing behavior, and directory handling, but these are not severe enough to render it unusable.

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. 'de um diretório' clarifies that corpus_dir is the source directory, adding meaning to the parameter name alone. However, it does not explain the default behavior, path format, or how recursive/required the directory is.

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 states a specific action ('Indexa' - indexes), a clear resource (documents md/txt/pdf from a directory), and the target (vector and BM25 indexes). This clearly differentiates it from siblings 'search' and 'ask', which are query operations.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to index documents before searching or asking. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used.

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