mcp_engram_force_spatial_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool forces ingestion without requiring file system save events, but it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data, performance impact, or required permissions). For a force operation, more behavioral context is needed.

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 sentences effectively convey identity, purpose, and added value without any redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the tool's role.

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 tool's complexity as a bootstrap force operation and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or success/failure indications.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, just summarizing that paths can be files or directories. No additional constraints or format details are provided.

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 verb 'Force the daemon to perform tree-sitter AST extraction and ingestion' and the resource 'a list of files or an entire directory'. It distinguishes the tool from manual operations and implies a different use case from the sibling 'incremental_spatial_ingest' by emphasizing bootstrapping without save events.

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 context by labeling it as an 'Item 1.5 bootstrap tool' and explaining it enables 'agent-driven historical spatial bootstrap instead of manual open+save'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'mcp_engram_incremental_spatial_ingest'.

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