ingest_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the valuable incremental behavior (unchanged files skipped, changed files re-chunked). However, it never says that indexing writes state, what happens to files deleted from disk since the last run, which project/store is affected, or whether the operation is idempotent or costly.

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 tight sentences with zero filler and the core action front-loaded. Slightly dense clauses ('chunked by heading with file and line provenance') but every clause adds 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?

For a two-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover the undocumented project parameter and say something about the result or scope of indexing. It covers the main path behavior well but leaves the second parameter and the effect of the operation unexplained.

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% for two parameters. The description clarifies that path is a directory root traversed for files, which is useful, but the project parameter is never mentioned at all, and there is no detail on path format, recursion depth, or how project scopes the index.

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 (Index) and resource (Markdown, text and reStructuredText files under path), plus the chunking strategy. It is unmistakably distinct from the note-oriented siblings like get, search, and add_note.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'under path' phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about how this relates to the search/get tools that consume the index. An agent must infer the workflow.

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