l2_import_obj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the import and the possibility of later export, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., overwriting, temporary storage), required permissions, or error handling. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and succinctly links to a related tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and indicates the next step. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and edge cases, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating 'Absolute path to the .obj file to import.' It does not provide additional context like file existence checks or expected path formats.

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 verb 'Import', the resource 'OBJ file', and the context 'into the mesh pipeline'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like l2_export_obj (which exports) and l2_create_usx_package (which is the next step).

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 usage for importing OBJ files into the mesh pipeline, with a hint about the workflow (export to .usx). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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