ingest_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the chunking process, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing memories are overwritten), rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a critical 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and efficient.

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 tool complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. It lacks details on return format or chunk size, but overall provides sufficient context for a focused ingestion tool.

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%, so both parameters are described in the schema. The description mentions document types in examples but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 that the tool extracts memories from a document by splitting into chunks and processing each one. It specifies the verb 'extract' and resource 'memories from a document', and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on onboarding with document types like READMEs and API specs.

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 provides clear context and examples of when to use the tool, such as onboarding with READMEs or architecture docs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings like 'import_memories' or 'extract_memories', which could help the agent choose appropriately.

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