导入交接包（默认隔离）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: full sha256 verification, normalization to the current project, default quarantine behavior, and that quarantine imports only metadata and summaries while the body awaits release. It does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, idempotency, or error cases, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core operation, verification step, and default quarantine behavior are front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information.

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 an import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: verification, normalization, default isolation, and the metadata-only nature of quarantine imports. It stops short of explaining result structure or how the release step is performed, but the essential context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the quarantine default and the project unresolved_project case. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: importing a .hop handoff package, with sha256 verification and normalization to the current project. It clearly contrasts with export_handoff by operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from release_quarantine or other sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states that AI-initiated imports default to quarantine mode and that the body awaits release. This gives useful context about the default path, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus release_quarantine or when to pass quarantine=false beyond the schema note. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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