io_import_file

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

The description is extremely brief and discloses only 'AUTO detects' the format. It doesn't mention what happens on import (scene additions, naming conventions, coordinate transforms, scale/unit handling, material/texture resolution), or whether it supports multiple files. There are no annotations for safety (readOnly/destructive hints), so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loads the core value: format support with AUTO detection. It earns its place with no filler. A bit more detail would be valuable, but for the amount of content present, the structure is clean.

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 file import tool with 2 parameters, no annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the AUTO detection behavior in detail, licensing/tooling considerations for .blend, limits on import, or what a successful import produces. The listed formats convey breadth, but practical invocation context is missing.

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. The description mentions AUTO detection and lists formats, which clarifies the 'format' parameter's default behavior. However, the 'filepath' parameter gets no added context beyond its name, and there is no explanation of what values the format parameter accepts (e.g., whether explicit format strings like 'FBX' are valid).

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 states the tool imports files and specifies the supported formats (.fbx/.gltf/.glb/.obj/.stl/.ply/.dae/.abc/.usd/.blend). The verb 'import' is specific and the resource is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like io_export_file, but the import direction is implied by the name and description.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_import, io_get_import_options, or io_export_file. The description only lists supported formats, not usage scenarios or selection criteria. An agent gets no help choosing between this and sibling import-related tools.

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