Maa Import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether importing overwrites existing configuration, where the config is written, whether it validates the file, or what happens on conflict.

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?

A single short phrase with no wasted words, but that terseness comes at the cost of any structure or front-loaded guidance. It is concise but under-specifies rather than efficiently informing.

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 tool is a mutation-style import with no annotations, and although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description says nothing about overwrite behavior, destination, permissions, or the meaning of the type parameter in context. For a config-import operation this is a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (type with its default and enumeration of cli/profile/infrast, and file_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about format, relative-vs-absolute paths, or interaction between type and file_path, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"导入配置文件" states a verb (导入) and resource (配置文件), but it is terse and does not distinguish this from siblings such as maa_install, maa_init, or maa_convert, all of which also involve configuration handling. An agent reading only this line cannot tell precisely what makes maa_import unique.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many other setup/install/config siblings (maa_install, maa_init, maa_install_cli, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternative routing are provided.

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