cuemap_ingest_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Explicitly ingest' – no mention of side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether existing data is overwritten. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and a clear usage constraint. Zero waste; every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on duplicate ingest, whether it's reversible). This is a moderate gap for an agent relying solely on the description.

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%, with both 'path' and 'project' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents them adequately. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Explicitly ingest one local file into CueMap' – a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'local file' distinguishes it from sibling tools cuemap_ingest_url and cuemap_ingest_content. However, it doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so a slight deduction for not reinforcing the distinction.

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?

'Use only for a file the user has placed in scope and asked to ingest' gives a clear condition for use and implies it's not for URLs or content. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the condition is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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