ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by stating that it 'Returns immediately — the daemon indexes in the background,' and mentions smart sitemap discovery, single-page fallback, and why no in-process file loader exists (daemon owns the filesystem). It omits details like authentication or failure modes, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a few clarifying lines and a parameter breakdown. No words are wasted, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential dimensions: purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. The existence of an output schema precludes the need to describe return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section does exactly that by adding meaning to each parameter: source ('HTTP(S) URL'), overwrite ('replace existing data'), and collection ('Auto-derived if empty'). This fully bridges the gap left by the bare 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Ingest an HTTP(S) URL into the knowledge base') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'For local files and directories, use register_directory + sync_all_registrations', making its scope 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for HTTP(S) URLs) and when to use alternatives (for local files and directories, naming the exact sibling tools). This is a clear 'when-to-use vs. when-not-to' instruction that goes beyond mere implication.

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