trawl_ingest_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether ingestion is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens if the pool does not exist, or what the success/failure behavior looks like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the typo "pool.s" and the extremely terse phrasing keep it from being fully polished.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an ingestion/mutation tool. It omits key operational context such as required permissions, pool existence assumptions, supported file types, and ingestion behavior.

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 100%, so both file_path and pool_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the file and target pool, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: "Ingest a single file into a pool's collection." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trawl_ingest_url, but the typo "pool.s" slightly reduces clarity and there is no explicit sibling comparison.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trawl_ingest_url, trawl_load_pool, or trawl_ingest_status. It only implies usage through the phrase "single file," with no prerequisites or exclusions.

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