upload_and_index

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

Description mentions file transfer handling for remote servers and indexing trigger, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), failure modes, or async nature. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.

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 concise sentences: first defines core action, second adds conditional behavior. Every word provides value with no redundancy.

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?

Missing important context such as supported file types, size limits, indexing behavior synchronous/asynchronous, and error handling. Given the tool's involvement in uploading and indexing, more detail is needed for safe agentic 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description 'Local path to the file to upload and index'. Tool description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool uploads a file to the server's input directory and triggers indexing, with handling for remote servers. This distinguishes it from siblings like ingest_file which likely assume file is already on server.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ingest_file or upsert_document. The description implies it's for local files needing upload and indexing, but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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