import_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions uploading files/directories, it doesn't describe what happens during import (e.g., validation, overwrite behavior, permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that states the core purpose and scope (supports single files or directories). It's front-loaded with the main action and has no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (upload/import operation with a nested config object) and the presence of an output schema (which relieves the description from explaining return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and poor parameter coverage, it lacks critical context about behavioral traits and parameter meanings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 description provides zero information about parameters. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema has no descriptions at the top level, only within nested definitions), the description fails to compensate. It doesn't mention the required 'config' parameter or any of its nested fields like workspace_name, workflow_source, etc., leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: '将 WDL 工作流上传到 Bio‑OS' (upload WDL workflows to Bio‑OS). It specifies the verb (upload/import) and resource (WDL workflows), and mentions support for single files or entire directories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_dashboard_file' or 'fetch_wdl_from_dockstore', which prevents a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'validate_wdl', 'submit_workflow', or 'check_workflow_import_status'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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