import_sarif

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions re-enrichment and stable hashes, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, network requirements). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two clear sentences (with a bullet-like second line) that front-load the primary purpose and then add value with context about the pipeline. No redundancy, but the enrichment detail could be integrated more smoothly.

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 the presence of an output schema (though not shown), and high schema coverage, the description covers purpose, use case, and processing details. It lacks prerequisites or error handling, but is fairly complete for a data import tool.

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 100%, with each parameter having a concise description. The tool description adds little to parameter semantics beyond stating the overall pipeline flow. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Ingest an external SARIF file into the normalized finding pipeline' – a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like export_sarif and scan_* commands by focusing on importing external results. The usage context is explicit.

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 description explains that the tool allows results from any SARIF-producing tool to join native flows, which implies when to use (external SARIF ingestion). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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