ingest_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions ingestion but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, storage location, persistence, or whether it returns any result. The type hint is mentioned but not explained in terms of behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is purposeful, with no wasted space.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, side effects, and prerequisites. For a tool with many siblings, more context on when to use this tool is needed.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for 'file_type' by listing possible values (code/markdown/text), but does not address the 'source' parameter at all. The required 'text' parameter is obvious from the description but lacks detail on format or constraints.

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 verb 'Ingest' and the resource 'raw text', and distinguishes from siblings like 'ingest_directory' and 'ingest_file' by specifying raw text input. It also mentions an optional type hint, adding specificity.

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 raw text ingestion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ingest_directory or ingest_file. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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