raggy_upload

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It provides useful behavioral context: the content is private, becomes indexed and searchable, and requires an API key. However, it does not disclose limits, duplicate-name handling, or error behavior, and its claim of 'files' support is not backed by any file parameter in the schema. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, when to use an alternative, and the auth prerequisite. The core action is front-loaded with zero wasted 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?

For a moderate-complexity additive tool, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, privacy, and auth. With no annotations and no output schema, it could additionally describe the return value and duplicate/overwrite behavior, and reconcile the 'files' claim with a schema that only accepts url/content strings. These are minor gaps.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the url/content exclusivity constraint. The description's categories ('files, URLs, or long-form content') broadly map to the content/url parameters but add no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('private knowledge base source') and enumerates the accepted inputs: files, URLs, and long-form content. It also names the sibling it is not (raggy_capture), so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('documents, articles, or reference material the user wants indexed and searchable') and when not to ('For short notes/thoughts use raggy_capture instead'), naming the alternative with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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