spine_import_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool uses the official Spine CLI and performs import operations. It does not disclose permissions or side effects like overwriting existing files, but the action is clearly defined.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence covers the core purpose, while the second provides critical usage exclusions.

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's straightforward nature (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the import operation and exclusions. It does not explain return values, but the output is implicitly the written .spine project.

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% with all parameters documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'import' and specifies the resource: Spine JSON, binary skeleton data, or other supported input into a .spine project via the official Spine CLI. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what not to use it for (texture packing, project export, editor UI actions, manual project internals editing).

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 explicitly states when to use (for importing supported inputs into a .spine project) and when not to use (excludes texture packing, export, editor UI, manual editing). This provides clear context and differentiation from alternatives.

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