ingest_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lacks details on side effects, error behavior (e.g., if file is inaccessible), authentication needs, rate limits, or format support. The term 'index' is vague without explaining what processing occurs.

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 are highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous words or redundant information.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain typical outcomes (e.g., success return, errors). It omits info on file size limits, supported formats, and whether indexing is synchronous or asynchronous.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for file_path. The tool description reinforces the local and accessible nature but adds minimal new information beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 verb 'Index' and the resource 'a specific local file from the file system'. It distinguishes from siblings like ingest_batch (batched), ingest_text (text content), and upload_and_index (uploaded file) by specifying 'local file'.

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 description implies usage for local files accessible by the server but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like upload_and_index or ingest_text. No exclusions or cross-references are provided.

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