aegis_index_add

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the corpus is local and persists for future checks, but says nothing about what happens on a duplicate label, whether re-adding overwrites existing entries, or how the file is validated.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. The docstring-style layout is slightly heavier than a single prose sentence would be, but every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation/non-destructive profile. Combined with full documentation of both parameters, the description is nearly complete; only edge-case semantics (duplicate label, invalid path) are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: file_path is documented as an 'Absolute path', label is given a format example ('Smith2025') and its default ('Defaults to the file name'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, which only supplies a title and empty default.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Add a paper to the local comparison corpus') plus the downstream purpose ('for future plagiarism checks'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like aegis_analyze_paper or aegis_index_summary. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'for future plagiarism checks' implies this is a setup step performed before comparison work, which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite/ordering guidance relative to aegis_compare_papers or aegis_index_summary, and no exclusions.

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