import_exam_radar

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details about side effects, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or failure modes. For a tool that writes files, such transparency is essential but missing.

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, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not specify input formats, output behavior, or what 'gold-zone weakmap' implies.

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 coverage is only 33% (only project_root has a description). The description does not explain any parameter, leaving export_md and course_name undefined. It adds no value beyond parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('Import') and the specific output files ('radar.md, coverage.md annotation, and a gold-zone weakmap'). It differentiates from sibling tools like parse_exam_radar_export (which parses without importing) and generate_weakmap (which may generate from other sources).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like parse_exam_radar_export and generate_weakmap exist, but the description does not explain prerequisites, ordering, or selection criteria.

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