ingest_docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect: paragraphs join the gate corpus and copied wording is flagged. It leaves out operational details such as whether ingestion is idempotent, what qualifies as public, and whether entries can be removed.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted language. The core action and intended effect are front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Still, for an ingestion/mutation tool with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description is only minimally complete: it explains the corpus effect but not enough about accepted inputs or operational constraints.

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%, so the description must explain the two required parameters. It only gives vague context: source and text are not defined, and it does not say whether source is a URL, citation, or label, nor what text should contain.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: registering public documentation and adding its paragraphs to the gate corpus. It clearly explains the copy-detection purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby claim, quote, or rule tools.

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?

It implies the right usage context: register documentation you have read so copied wording is flagged, and write rules in your own words. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative tools.

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