raw_import_raw

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool may open a dialog or change project state, which is important behavioral context. It also states it is a static action without arguments. It doesn't detail side effects or error behavior, but covers the key risk of interactive/persistent changes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the key caution. Every word earns its place with no fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick scanning.

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 no-argument action with no output schema, the description provides enough to use it: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may open a dialog or mutate state. The caution about inspecting the command name adds a safety note. It lacks explicit success/return details, but these are not essential given the tool's nature.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds confirmation of 'no-argument' which aligns with the schema, and no further parameter meaning is needed.

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 imports raw audio data without headers, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling raw_import_audio by the 'without headers' qualifier, and notes it is a static no-argument action. It doesn't fully elaborate on use cases but conveys the core function.

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?

It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like raw_import_audio or project_import_audio. The only hint is 'inspect the command name first,' which is vague and not a clear usage condition. No exclusions or scenarios are given.

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