ingest_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic action and purpose but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it clones, updates, or modifies the graph), idempotency, or return values. This is a minimal description for a mutation-like 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It efficiently communicates the core action and 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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema), but as an ingest operation it likely has side effects on the code graph. The description does not explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites (e.g., repository accessibility), or the impact on existing data, leaving context incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions for repoUrl and repoName. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 the action ('Ingest') and the resource ('a repository into the code graph'), with a specific purpose ('for tool discovery'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_tools and scan_azure_devops by focusing on the ingestion action.

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 phrase 'for tool discovery' implies a use case, but no explicit guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like discover_tools or scan_azure_devops. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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