Ingest gate (prints the CLI command; does not run it)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral context: it does not execute the command, it only returns instructions, and it highlights the security reason requiring human approval. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and its limits, which is more than annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, with the main point (does NOT trigger ingest) front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds necessary value: what it does, what it returns, and why it is structured this way. It is concise, well-organized, and free of fluff.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the tool's role and rationale, and since an output schema exists, return values don't need elaboration. However, it omits any explanation of the 'source' parameter, which is a significant gap given the 0% schema coverage. This prevents the description from being fully complete on its own.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'source' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions or explains this parameter. There is no guidance on what value 'source' should take or what formats are accepted. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics, leaving the agent without any information to correctly populate the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: it is a human-approval gate that prints the CLI command without actually running the ingest. It explicitly says 'does NOT trigger ingest' and explains that it returns instructions for the caller to run in a terminal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual memory or capability lookups.

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 usage context: it should be used when fresh data needs to be pulled, but only behind explicit human approval because ingest touches external credentials and filesystem. It explains why the MCP surface cannot pull data on its own, giving a strong rationale for when this gate tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this when you intend to start an ingest process.'

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