add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: copies files, ingests, fetches URLs as markdown, requires absolute paths, and explains force overwrite and OCR options. It is transparent about the operation being additive and destructive (overwrite with force). No contradictions.

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 concise with a front-loaded main purpose followed by a clear parameter list. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy. Slightly longer due to OCR details, but acceptable.

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?

The description covers the action and parameters well but misses prerequisites (e.g., KB must be initialized via 'init'), and does not mention return values or success/failure outcomes. Given an output schema exists, return value explanation is acceptable, but the missing prerequisite is a gap.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: 'paths' are absolute paths/URLs, 'force' overwrites, 'enable_ocr' controls OCR, 'ocr_timeout' sets timeout. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Add files, directories, or URLs to the knowledge base and sync'), the resource (knowledge base), and distinct input types. It differentiates from siblings like 'crawl' or 'import_dataset' by focusing on adding specific paths.

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 details the behavior (copy, ingest, URL handling) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'crawl' for websites). Usage context is implied but not compared to sibling tools.

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