paper_ingest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool materializes cached evidence and images, which is useful outcome context, but it does not explain re-ingest behavior, cache location, or cost beyond what the 'force' parameter text says.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the input, the action, and the two outputs with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the two artifacts produced, but it omits how this tool relates to the search/visual siblings and gives no sense of cost or latency for a parsing operation. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool sitting in a four-tool family.

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%, so both 'path' (absolute local path with accepted extensions) and 'force' (expensive cache invalidation) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the 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?

States a specific verb (parse), a specific resource (one research file), and the outcome (cached evidence plus referenced images). The word 'one' implicitly scopes it to single-file ingestion, contrasting with paper_batch_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to ingest versus paper_search, paper_batch_search, or paper_visual, nor whether ingestion is a prerequisite for the other tools. Only the implicit single-file scope hints at usage.

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