add_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses background indexing, immediate return with file count, model download, absolute path requirement, glob matching semantics, supported file types, silent ignoring of unsupported types, and partial-search behavior during indexing. This is exceptional coverage.

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 about 120 words yet packed with essential details: purpose, usage timing, background behavior, glob semantics, supported types, return shape, and concurrency. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids redundancy, earning every sentence.

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 the complexity (background indexing, globs, model download), the description covers prerequisites, return shape, edge cases (unsupported files silently ignored, partial search results), and the follow-up tool (index_status). No critical gap remains.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter: path must be absolute and existing; include_globs/exclude_globs are illustrated with examples and matching rules (relative to folder, forward slashes). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Register a local folder so its documents become searchable.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_folder and reindex, and conveys the intended outcome immediately.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this once per folder before searching it,' and directs the user to 'call index_status to track progress.' It also notes the first index downloads a ~130 MB model, providing valuable context for when this tool is appropriate.

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