scout_import_neo4j

Does 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. It discloses only that dry_run counts rows, but says nothing about whether the import overwrites, merges, or appends, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens to existing graph data — large gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the parameter caveat second; there is no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the result of what it omits rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutating import with zero annotations the description should at least characterize persistence semantics and safety. An agent cannot tell from this definition what a real import does to the target graph.

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% and the single parameter has only a title and default. The description compensates by explaining what dry_run actually does ('counts rows only'), which is real value beyond the schema, but it never states the default is true or what the non-dry-run mode changes about side effects.

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 names a specific verb and resource: importing warehouse parquet data into Neo4j. That is far more specific than the bare name and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like enterprise_collect or scout_doctor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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 stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The dry_run parenthetical hints that a preview mode exists, but nothing says when an agent should choose this tool or what conditions must hold beforehand.

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