medeval_ingest_materials

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

All annotations are false, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions immutability and 'allowed' files, giving some context about side effects (new session) and constraints. However, it does not disclose potential validation steps, permissions needed, or what happens to existing data. Given the mutation nature, more detail is expected.

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, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but the dimension is about conciseness, not completeness, and it achieves that well.

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?

With six parameters, none explained, and minimal behavioral detail, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but an agent would struggle to know which parameters are required, their formats, or constraints. Important context like allowed file types and session creation details is missing.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the six parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'allowed local files' but does not clarify file_paths, platform, device_hint, pdf_read_mode, workflow_mode, or model_selection. With no parameter details, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Upload'), the resource ('allowed local files'), and the destination ('a new immutable cleaning session'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'medeval_start_generation' or 'medeval_list_projects', which involve different actions and resources.

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 'new immutable cleaning session' implies it's for starting a fresh session, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., not for existing sessions). No alternative tools are named or contrasted.

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