import_artifact

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the 512 MiB cap, the immutability rule ("source changes are rejected") and the no-execute guarantee. It does not clarify duplicate-import behavior, which is notable given idempotentHint=false alongside a content-addressed SHA-256 identity.

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?

Two dense sentences: identity/scope first, then the negative guarantees and limits. No filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (SHA-256 identity) is front-loaded.

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?

Simple three-parameter tool with annotations present, so the barrier is modest, but with no output schema the description should say what the agent gets back (an artifact id/handle?) and what happens on re-import of an identical hash. Those gaps matter for chaining into binary_session/open_binary.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it explains what kind values mean (APK/DEX/ELF SO formats) and that path is a source file. It says nothing about the project_id format, path resolution rules, or whether path is host-side or device-side, leaving real ambiguity.

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?

States a concrete verb (copy/import), a precise resource set (APK, DEX, ELF SO) and a destination (into a project), plus the key identity rule (SHA-256). It is clearly distinguishable from transfer siblings like pull_adb_package or push_adb_file, which move bytes to/from a device rather than into a project's content-addressed store.

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?

"Does not install or execute it" implicitly steers the agent away from install_adb_package/start_adb_app for execution, but no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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