import_embroidery

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral burden. It indicates a read-convert-write operation without side effects on input, but omits details like required permissions, error behavior, or whether it modifies the original file. Some transparency is provided via input format list but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys purpose. However, it could briefly mention output path without harming conciseness. Still, no unnecessary 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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate high-level purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or parameter behaviors. It is minimally complete for a simple tool.

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 description must compensate. It implies file_path is the embroidery file and mentions output is SVG, but does not describe output_svg_path's role or default behavior. Both parameters lack explicit semantic explanation beyond the schema itself.

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 converts machine embroidery files to SVG stitch plans, listing common input formats and noting editability in Inkscape. This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like export_embroidery or render_png_preview.

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 implies use when an SVG stitch plan is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings like preview_stitch_plan or convert_machine_format. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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