rag_add_source

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that the operation 'registers' a source and returns a confirmation dict, and it notes the follow-up ingest step. However, it does not disclose failure modes, idempotency, or what happens if the source name already exists. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary, a usage note, parameter bullets, and a returns line. The parameter list is a bit verbose but earned because the schema has no descriptions. The extra note about ingestion is valuable and not wasted.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with zero descriptions, this description covers all parameters, explains the return value, and provides a follow-up action. It lacks edge-case information (e.g., duplicate name behavior, authentication requirements), which would make it complete. For the complexity level, it is mostly complete.

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?

The description provides a detailed Args list with examples, default values, and purpose for all seven parameters, fully compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. However, there is a minor discrepancy: the schema sets include_patterns default to null, while the description claims a default of ['*.md'], which could confuse the agent.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Register a new documentation source for RAG indexing.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rag_remove_source, rag_ingest, and rag_update, which handle other aspects of RAG source management.

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 gives clear context: this is for adding a new documentation source, and it explicitly tells the agent to run 'rag_ingest(source_name=name)' afterward. It does not, however, enumerate when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternatives like rag_update, so it falls short of a 5.

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