cognify_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs 'add synchronously, then launches cognify in the background', which is key behavioral info. However, it omits details on failure modes, permissions, or side effects. The mention of background processing adds value.

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 two sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Ingest an uploaded file') and efficiently conveys the two-step process. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (3 params), the description outlines the basic flow but misses important context: what 'add' and 'cognify' entail, the purpose of 'dataset_name', and what the tool returns or logs. More detail on return behavior would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains that 'content_base64' accepts the file as base64 and 'filename' relates to the uploaded file, covering two of three parameters. The optional 'dataset_name' is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'Ingest an uploaded file into Cognee memory', specifying the action and target resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_file_ui' (likely UI-based) and 'remember' (likely for text memories) by focusing on base64 file ingestion and the specific add/cognify workflow.

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 use when a file is available as base64, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'upload_file_ui' or 'remember'. It lacks criteria for choosing this tool over alternatives or conditions where it should not be used.

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