import_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses supported formats, auto-detection behavior, and the requirement that filepath must exist. It also mentions the return dictionary. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., adding to current scene, potential conflicts), permissions, or error handling. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks edge case details.

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 concise: a single introductory sentence, a bullet-like list of supported formats, and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value. Information is front-loaded (purpose stated first). There is no redundancy or extraneous text.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, supported formats, parameters, and return value. The output schema exists, so return details are not fully necessary but are still provided. A minor gap: it does not mention that the import adds objects to the current scene or any potential overwrite behavior. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, this is mostly complete.

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 only title and type for each parameter, yielding 0% semantic coverage. The description compensates fully: it explains that filepath is an absolute path that must exist, and that type is an optional format override with a list of supported values (auto-detected if empty). This adds crucial meaning beyond the 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 begins with 'Import a 3D file into Blender', clearly stating the action and target. It lists supported formats, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_file (exporting) and open_file (opening .blend files). The verb 'import' and resource 'file into Blender' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that format auto-detection occurs from file extension, and that type is optional override. It implies when to use the type parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for opening .blend files) or suggest alternatives like open_file. The sibling list makes the distinction inferable, but explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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