import_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool imports into the store and returns an artifact id, but it does not disclose permissions, overwrite behavior, error cases, idempotency, or other side effects of a mutation-like import operation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, then the Series and Intervals paragraphs organize the dense parameter guidance. The description is long but every sentence carries operational meaning for a complex 18-parameter import tool.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers many parameter semantics. However, for a complex import with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it still omits important context such as permissions, overwrite behavior, and handling of unsupported or malformed files.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 18 parameters, and it does so for many of them: data_key, parametric_axis, stamps_key, sample_rate, start, ticks_per_unit, axes, axis, unit, ons_key, offs_key, times_key, stream, and stamp_column. It leaves some parameters such as name and units unexplained, preventing a top score.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: import a .npy/.npz/.mat/.csv file into the store and return its artifact id. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as register_dataset or export_artifact.

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 explains how to shape series and interval imports, but it does not state when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as register_dataset. There are no explicit preconditions, exclusions, or sibling-routing guidance.

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