Read this playbook before bulk-loading knowledge: scope by initiative, choose verbs by epistemic status, stamp memory layers by importance, then link notes after capture.
Read FIRST before bulk-importing knowledge. Returns the import playbook: scope by initiative, pick the verb by epistemic status, stamp the memory layer at creation by importance, and link after capturing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether calling this tool mutates state. It only promises a 'playbook' with no explanation of what that entails or how to use it.
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 a single sentence with multiple clauses, fairly front-loaded with the 'Read FIRST' instruction. However, it is dense and jargon-heavy ('epistemic status', 'memory layer', 'stamp') without explaining terms, which reduces navigability for an agent.
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, no annotations, and no parameter detail. The description provides only a high-level procedural outline but omits what the returned playbook contains, how to act on it, or any prerequisites. For a tool that appears to gate bulk operations, this is insufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description does not and need not describe parameters.
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 tool name 'import' and description 'Read FIRST before bulk-importing knowledge' suggest a bulk ingestion tool, but the description never states what the tool actually does. It only says the tool 'Returns the import playbook', which is a meta-instruction rather than a clear verb+resource. An agent cannot tell whether this tool imports data, returns documentation, or does both.
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 guidance is one prescriptive step ('Read FIRST before bulk-importing knowledge'), but it does not say when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool. There is no condition for use beyond an imperative ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.