rag_ingest

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the consequence of the write ('so it can be searched and cited'), which is useful, but says nothing about re-indexing behavior, supported formats (left to the schema), or cost/latency of ingestion.

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?

One declarative sentence front-loads the action and its payoff, followed by two short, well-formatted examples. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation's safety profile. The remaining gap is operational context (what happens on re-ingest, whether indexing is synchronous, format constraints), which is minor but would help an agent set expectations.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the two examples map natural-language requests onto concrete path values ('Index the folder ./data' -> path='./data'), clarifying that path accepts both files and folders. The response_format parameter is not addressed, but its schema description is self-explanatory.

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 ('Index') and resource ('a document or folder') plus the downstream purpose ('so it can be searched and cited'). It is distinguishable from rag_search/rag_answer by implication (this is the tool that adds content to the index), but it never names the siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the examples show how to invoke it, but nothing says when to use rag_ingest rather than rag_search or rag_answer, or that ingestion is a prerequisite for those tools. No prerequisites, limits, or exclusions are given.

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