Loading ToolBench
Single tool with adequate schema and description, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and error handling guidance. The tool name 'ingest_file' is clear and verb-based, and the description (145 chars) falls within the 10-1024 baseline. However, the 'content_type' parameter lacks a description entirely, violating the requirement that every parameter must be documented. Error responses are generic ('error' key with string message) and do not guide the LLM on recovery steps. No output schema is documented, forcing LLMs to infer the response structure. The tool performs a WRITE operation (storing to Chroma) but the description does not explicitly state this is a state-modifying action, which agents need to know for retry safety.
Read a file from the local filesystem, chunk its contents using RecursiveChunker, and store the chunks in the specified Chroma collection.
Parameter 'content_type' has no description. The rubric requires every parameter to have a non-empty description explaining what it controls. LLMs cannot infer that this is an optional MIME type override.
No output schema documented. The tool returns a dict with fields like 'content', 'content_type', 'size', 'chunks_created', and 'error', but LLMs have no formal specification of this structure. This forces LLMs to guess at response shape and risks misuse of returned fields.
Error responses do not guide recovery. Errors return a bare dict with an 'error' key and string message (e.g., 'File not found: {file_path}'). The rubric requires errors to tell the LLM what to do next. Example: 'File not found at {file_path}. Verify the path is correct and the file exists.'
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 50 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Tool description does not explicitly state it modifies state (writes to Chroma). Agents need to know which calls are safe to retry and which have irreversible consequences. Add: 'This tool modifies state by storing chunks in the Chroma collection.'
No input validation or constraint documentation. The 'file_path' parameter accepts any string; no guidance on absolute vs. relative paths, symlink handling, or size limits. The 'collection_name' parameter has no validation that the collection exists before attempting to ingest (though the code does check this, the description does not warn the user).