plur_ingest

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the key fact of optional auto-saving, but omits details on pattern matching criteria, error handling, or configuration requirements. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, with no redundant or filler words. Everything contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

Adequate for a simple extraction tool with 5 well-documented parameters, but lacks explanation of what 'engram candidates' are, expected output, or error cases. Missing context compared to the large sibling set.

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 the description's role is limited. It highlights 'optionally auto-save' which relates to extract_only, but doesn't enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (extract) and resource (engram candidates) along with method (pattern matching) and optional behavior (auto-save). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like plur_learn or plur_capture by specifying candidates and pattern matching, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like plur_learn, plur_capture, or plur_inject. The description implies usage for extraction and optional saving, but provides no context or conditions for selection.

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