add_doc_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: runtime registration, indexing, and persistence for future runs. However, it does not address potential side effects like duplicate name handling, idempotency, or error conditions.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the persistence behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete for a registration tool. It explains what happens (indexing) and persistence across runs, which covers the main context.

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 100%, as both `name` and `llms_txt_url` have descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Register a new llms.txt source at runtime and index it.' It uses a specific verb (register) and resource (llms.txt source), and the persistence note distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_doc_source and refresh_doc_source.

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 context is clear: this is for adding a new source at runtime, as opposed to listing, searching, fetching, removing, or refreshing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for an existing source that needs update) or explicitly name alternatives.

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