bowire.har.import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read of harPath, the optional file write to outPath, the inline-vs-file return behavior, and exactly what redaction strips (Authorization, Cookie, X-Api-Key, …). It omits error/overwrite behavior for an existing outPath and any permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the return shape and the redaction option; each sentence carries information. It is dense with parentheticals and inline JSON, which slightly hurts scanability but not enough to waste space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned summary shape { recordingId, stepCount, authHeaders, redacted, outPath?, recording? }, including when the optional fields appear. For a 4-param, single-required import tool this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the baseline is 3. The description restates the same defaults and header examples rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema (the '"-" or omit' rule is the only genuinely additive nuance).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Convert a HAR 1.2 trace into a Bowire recording', with the source format (HAR 1.2) pinned down. It is clearly distinguishable from the record.*, mock.* and auth-recording.* siblings, and it names bowire.mock.start as the natural downstream consumer.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Pair with bowire.mock.start { recording: <outPath> } to serve the trace back' tells the agent the follow-up workflow, and it explains when to set redactSecrets. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a competing import path, so no exclusions are covered.

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