rag_source_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'register/update' implying mutation, but does not clarify side effects, whether existing data is overwritten, permission requirements, or reversibility. The only behavioral detail is the auto-format detection, which is minor.

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, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits critical details, so the brevity is not a virtue.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values or error conditions. With five parameters and no annotations, the description leaves too many aspects unexplained, such as the meaning of 'kind', the expected path format, or session_id usage.

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 only explains the 'format' parameter's 'auto' value, and says nothing about 'name', 'path', 'kind', or 'session_id'. This fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb (register/update) and resource (1C source tree), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling rag_sources_add_from_directory, though the distinct operation is implied.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that format detection is automatic when format=auto, which is a behavioral hint rather than usage context. No mention of prerequisites or when to choose rag_sources_add_from_directory or other RAG tools.

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