rca_guide_ingest_pdf

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

Annotations are minimal; description adds plan limits (Starter up to 10, Pro up to 100, Enterprise unlimited), max PDF size 50MB, and quality thresholds. It implies ingestion is a write operation but does not detail idempotency or conflict behavior. Overall, adds meaningful constraints beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, workflow, limits, and params. The args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but front-loaded with essential workflow. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Includes recommended workflow, plan limits, max PDF size, and return fields (guide_id, section_count, etc.) despite lacking explicit output schema. Does not cover error handling or malformed input, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

The input schema has detailed descriptions for many parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description lists the parameter names but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states 'Parse a PDF equipment manual and ingest it into the RCA knowledge base' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending a workflow involving rca_guide_pdf_preview and rca_guide_search.

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?

Explicitly provides a recommended workflow: 1) preview, 2) ingest if quality >=0.5, 3) verify with search. Also includes plan limits and a skip_preview_check parameter, giving clear guidance on when and how to use.

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