Import an existing app into App Factory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool analyzes the codebase, creates a project in phase=audit, journals the baseline, and places the project in maintenance mode. This goes beyond simply saying 'import' and gives meaningful behavioral context, though it does not discuss potential errors or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence efficiently conveys the resulting workflow. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what happens on import, the resulting project state (maintenance mode, phase=audit), and the continuation workflow. Enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (appPath and goal). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are sufficient, so the baseline 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 tool's action: 'Adopt an already-built app as an App Factory project in maintenance mode.' It specifies the resource (existing app) and the outcome (project creation with phase=audit), distinguishing it from other project-related tools like start_project.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have an already-built app to adopt. It also outlines the downstream improve/fix loop, implying this tool is a prerequisite to suggest_improvements, test_app, etc. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like start_project.

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