rag_sources_add_from_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool discovers and registers directories; it does not mention side effects of registration, whether the operation is destructive, how watch/recursive options behave, or what happens with existing sources. This is minimal behavioral information for a registration tool.

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 efficient sentence with the primary verb and resource front-loaded. It avoids filler and is easy to scan, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and usage detail penalized in other dimensions.

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 five parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs more context to be invoked correctly. The description does not explain the meaning of source directories, the effect of prefix, the impact of watch, or the expected output. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the description remains incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 for the five undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'path' refers to a root directory; watch, prefix, recursive, and session_id receive no explanatory context. The parameter names and defaults provide some inference, but the description adds almost no semantic value.

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 concrete action ('Discover/register') on a specific resource ('1C configuration and extension source directories under a root directory'), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rag_source_add, but the directory-scoped batch intent is reasonably clear.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_source_add or rag_sources_list. The description implies a directory-level bulk operation but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to other RAG source tools.

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