ingest_document

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

The description discloses the internal process (parsed, chunked, embedded, stored) and supported file types. However, with no annotations, it should also cover potential side effects like overwrite behavior, authentication needs, or performance implications, which are omitted.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by format support, processing steps, and parameter details. Every line provides unique information without repetition.

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 description covers the tool's function and parameters adequately. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value or confirm success. It also lacks details on error handling or duplicate handling, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds clarifying details: file_path can be absolute or relative, and collection defaults to 'default'. These are valuable but modest additions, placing the score at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('document file into the knowledge hub'), clearly stating the action and target. It also lists supported formats, which adds precision. The tool is distinct from siblings like delete_document or query_knowledge_hub.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to sibling tools. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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