research_import

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the action and parameters, includes default behavior for source_indices and timeout. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether import adds or overwrites), error behaviors, or prerequisites beyond the status condition. Useful but limited.

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 extremely concise: two lines of purpose, one usage precondition line, and a clean Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then structured param details.

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?

Purpose, usage, and parameters are well-covered. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, success confirmation, or what modifications occur to the notebook. For a workflow step, it is largely sufficient.

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%, but the 'Args' section in the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter's type (UUID, ID, indices, seconds), defaults (source_indices: all, timeout: 300), and guidance (increase for large notebooks). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Import discovered sources into notebook.' It uses a specific verb ('import') and resource ('sources into notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like research_start and research_status by implying it is the post-completion step.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call after research_status shows status="completed".' This provides a clear precondition. It also offers usage advice on timeout for large notebooks. Lacks mention of alternatives or when not to use, but the precondition is strong.

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