add_file

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

The description discloses key side effects: the file is persisted in config.yaml and automatically re-indexed on future runs. It also mentions the return format (confirmation with chunk count or error), which is important behavioral context given no annotations were provided.

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 compact and well-structured with purpose, args, and returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the leading sentence provides immediate orientation.

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 essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is present: purpose, parameter requirements, persistence side effect, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., add_folder) and edge-case error conditions, but for a 2-parameter tool this is nearly complete.

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?

Both parameters are defined with meaningful semantics: file_path is an absolute path, and project is an existing project name. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, making invocation unambiguous.

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 tool indexes a specific file into an existing project, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning persistence in config.yaml for automatic re-indexing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context: use for individual files, project must already exist, and it persists for future runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_folder or add_project, but the 'must already exist' requirement implies when the alternative is needed.

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