create_context_receipt_from_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is 'deterministic and local,' which is useful, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), authentication needs, or error handling for missing files. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices parameter explanation for brevity, which is a trade-off but not excessive 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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which documents returns), the description should at least outline parameter purposes and high-level workflow. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed about how to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (path, query, chunk_tokens, token_budget, overlap_tokens). The agent gains no semantic insight into their roles or defaults beyond the schema structure.

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: 'Create a Context Receipt from a local document file or directory.' It specifies supported file formats (.md, .txt, .rst) and notes that the result is deterministic and local. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_context_receipt' (likely for other sources).

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 implies usage for local text documents but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_context_receipt) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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