ragflow_upload_agent_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/safe profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful workflow context (returns an object that must be threaded into ragflow_agent_chat) but says nothing about the allowed upload-root constraint, source-mode exclusivity, or size limits the schema hints at.

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?

One tight sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the essential handoff instruction. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves key ambiguities unresolved rather than resolved.

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 no explanation, and the required agent_id is covered by the schema. For a 5-parameter write tool with three mutually exclusive content sources and a filesystem-root restriction, though, the description does not give enough to call it correctly without reading the schema closely.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify that text, file_path and content_base64 are alternative sources for the same bytes, which is the one thing the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 specific verb and resource (upload a file) and scopes it to 'an agent run', which separates it from the general ragflow_upload_file and ragflow_upload_attachment siblings. It also links forward to ragflow_agent_chat, but never explicitly names the sibling uploads it is not, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 second clause gives real downstream guidance ('pass the returned object in ragflow_agent_chat files'), which tells the agent this is a preparatory step. However there is no when-to-use/when-not rule versus ragflow_upload_file or ragflow_upload_attachment, and no guidance on which of the three content sources to pick.

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