ingest_wiki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the heading-aware chunking behavior and the '(Re)index' wording hints at re-running over existing content, but it does not state what happens to previously indexed data, whether the operation is safely idempotent, or whether existing wiki-layer content is replaced or removed. This is a significant gap for an ingestion/mutation tool.

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, both purposeful. The first front-loads the action and target, the second immediately provides relevant chunking behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Although an output schema exists and can describe return values, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation: parameter semantics are incomplete for `project`, usage guidance is only implicit, and the mutation/overwrite behavior is undisclosed. An agent would need external knowledge or guesswork to use this tool confidently.

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 add meaning to the parameters. It clarifies that wiki_dir should point to a markdown code-wiki directory, but it says nothing about the `project` parameter, which remains ambiguous despite having a default. This leaves one of the two parameters essentially undocumented.

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: '(Re)index a code-wiki directory (markdown)' into a defined target, the project's wiki layer. The 'markdown' qualifier and 'wiki layer' clearly differentiate this from the sibling tool ingest_code. An agent can immediately understand what this tool is for.

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 implies the tool is for markdown wiki directories, which suggests when to reach for it versus ingest_code, but it never explicitly states a when-to-use condition or names alternatives. The usage context is inferred rather than made explicit.

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