List recent imports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them with a privacy disclosure that the local SQLite data will be transmitted into the conversation and to whatever model the client uses, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral trait annotations cannot express.

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 return fields are front-loaded and the trigger conditions follow in a scannable bullet. Slightly marked down because enumerating return fields overlaps with the existing output schema, and the privacy paragraph, while valuable, is the longest block in the text.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and the data-handling caveat. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents its 1-50 range and default of 5 in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (recent import runs) and enumerates the exact fields returned: importer, source file name/SHA-256, run outcome, and row counts. No sibling tool covers imports, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and the ordering ('newest first') is stated up front.

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?

An explicit 'Use this tool when' clause names two concrete triggers: asking what was imported and when, or diagnosing why an import did not go through. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but no competing import tool exists among the siblings, so the routing is effectively complete.

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