Neotoma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'raw files only' and idempotency requirement, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'store'), what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate idempotency keys. For a storage tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that each earn their place. First sentence states purpose and usage context, second provides parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a storage tool. It covers basic purpose and parameter relationships but misses behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, and return values. For a 5-parameter tool with no structured safety information, this leaves significant gaps.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the base64 requirement for file_content and the file_path alternative, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Store raw files only' with the verb 'store' and resource 'raw files'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'store_structured' by specifying 'unstructured' storage, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'store' or 'parse_file'. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from similar 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use when data is file- or resource-sourced (user attachment or file to preserve)' and mentions alternatives ('Use file_path for local files instead of base64 encoding'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus 'store_structured' or 'parse_file', missing full alternative guidance.

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