docs_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what happens to existing index entries, whether ingestion is idempotent, how directories are traversed, or any side effects like merging or overwriting. The lack of such info makes behavior unpredictable for a write 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 primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information (ingestion purpose, input form, supported extensions), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should clarify post-ingestion behavior, error handling, and index update semantics. It only covers input restrictions without explaining what the agent should expect after calling the tool, leaving a significant gap for a tool that mutates an index.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'path' and 'domain' parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of domain names or path formatting, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ingests files into a domain-specific documentation index, with a specific verb and resource. It also lists supported file extensions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_ingest_text (which handles raw text) and docs_search (which reads the index).

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 file ingestion by specifying acceptable file paths/directories and extensions, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of docs_ingest_text or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is only implied.

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