project_import

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

With no useful annotations (all false), the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that files are not parsed or rewritten, which is transparent about non-modification of source content. However, it does not explain what 'import' actually does to the project (e.g., adds references, copies, requires existing project) or whether it has side effects. This is insufficient for a write-capable 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Import' and specifies key file types. This is an appropriate size for a tool description, even if other dimensions suffer from under-specification.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and no helpful annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not address prerequisites, project state, or parameter meanings. The output schema exists but that does not mitigate the missing guidance on inputs and 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at file types (.val and Tape) but does not mention project_path, source_pattern, name, or measurement_files. No parameter is described, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 the tool's function: importing native .val and optional Tape files. It uses a specific verb (Import) and resource (native file types), and the tool name project_import distinguishes it from siblings like project_create or project_open. The scope is well-defined.

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 usage when needing to bring existing .val or Tape files without modification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_create or project_open. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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