import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that imported objects are added to the current scene (behavioral trait) and mentions supported formats, but doesn't address potential limitations like file size constraints, permission requirements, error handling, or whether the operation modifies existing scene data. It provides basic behavioral information but lacks depth for a mutation 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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the format listing could be more concise. The inclusion of both 'Args' and 'Returns' sections (which aren't standard MCP description elements) adds redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, but the organization could be cleaner.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It covers the what and how of importing, but doesn't address error scenarios, performance implications, or integration with sibling tools. The return format documentation helps, but more behavioral context would be beneficial given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining what 'file_path' represents ('complete path of the file to import') and listing supported format extensions. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify path format requirements or validation rules.

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 specific action ('import external files') and resource ('in 3ds Max'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'export_file', 'open_scene', or 'new_scene'. It specifies that imported objects are added to the current scene, which is a precise scope definition.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to import various 3D file formats into 3ds Max) and lists supported formats, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'open_scene' for different file operations. The context is well-defined but lacks explicit exclusions.

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