moose_ingest

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behaviors: re-ingesting is a no-op if the hash is unchanged, and every record is stamped with provenance (file/hash/commit). It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing records or permissions, but the disclosed idempotency and provenance are valuable.

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 uses four sentences to cover purpose, path examples, source options, idempotency, and provenance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids fluff, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to invoke it, default behavior, and idempotency. It could mention how ingested files are used by sibling tools (e.g., lookup/search), but that is reasonably implied in the framework context.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the 'path' example (Saved Games path or UNC), the 'source' enum defaults, and the behavior when 'path' is omitted (bundled GitHub reference). The 'label' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Index a Moose.lua file into the framework reference.' It clearly distinguishes this ingest tool from sibling lookup/search tools by focusing on adding data rather than querying it.

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 gives clear context on when to provide a path and when to omit it, and explains the source parameter options and defaults. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use moose_lookup for queries'), but the use case is well implied.

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