Add File

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: chunking by headings and the exact title-derivation rule (first H1, else filename). It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on conflicts with existing memory, which are notable for a write tool.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, chunking/title rule, invocation gate. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 explained, and the description covers the key ingestion behavior and the calling gate. Minor gap: consequences of adding a duplicate or invalid file are unstated.

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%, so 'path', 'project', and 'tags' are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly reinforces that the path is a local markdown file; it adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Ajoute un fichier markdown local à la mémoire') and adds the chunking semantic ('découpé par titres'). The local-markdown resource implicitly distinguishes it from add_text/add_url, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an unambiguous gating rule: call ONLY when Denis explicitly requests it in the current message, never on the agent's own initiative. This is explicit when/when-not guidance, the strongest form of routing instruction.

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