ingest_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ingestion is a write operation, that re-ingesting replaces existing data, and that it supports VLM captioning for PDFs with different quality profiles. It also specifies the return structure. This is thorough for a tool of this complexity.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral details. No extra words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers input requirements (absolute path), behavior (replace on re-ingest), return fields, and an optional feature (VLM captioning). It briefly addresses PDF-only behavior. Missing details like error handling or unsupported file types, but overall sufficient for this complexity level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'Path must be absolute' and the effect of re-ingesting, but the schema already describes each parameter adequately. No additional semantic depth beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Ingest', the resource 'document file (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD)', and the destination 'into the vector database'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_file' and 'list_files' by specifying file ingestion. The mention of absolute path and re-ingest behavior adds specificity.

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 some usage context: 'Path must be absolute' and 're-ingesting the same path replaces its existing data'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ingest_data'), nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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