ingest_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. 'Ingest' implies a write/mutation, but the description does not mention persistence, collection creation behavior, duplicate handling, chunking consequences, or failure behavior. It does add that it returns chunks added and total, which is useful but insufficient for an unannotated write operation.

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 two tight sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose and then giving input guidance. It earns its place, though it is concise partly because it omits important parameter and behavior details.

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 tool with 5 parameters, zero annotations, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It covers the two input sources but leaves chunking parameters and collection behavior to inference, and it only vaguely describes the return value.

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. It explains paths ('files/dirs of .txt/.md') and texts ('raw strings'), but it does not explain chunkSize, chunkOverlap, or the collection parameter beyond the vague phrase 'named collection.' This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest documents into a named collection so they can be searched.' It clearly distinguishes this ingestion tool from the search/answer/evaluation siblings, and it names the two relevant input forms, paths and texts.

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 implies clear usage context: use this tool to add documents to a collection before searching them. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest possible routing guidance.

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