fgui_import_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'this is a disk write operation' and describes the conflict handling modes (reject, auto-rename, replace). This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention permissions or reversibility.

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 that starts with the core action and adds key context. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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?

Despite being a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description only covers the source path and conflict policy. It omits other significant parameters like folder_path, create_folders, resource_name, and timeout_seconds. An output schema exists, but the description leaves too much to discover through parameter names alone.

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?

The description adds meaning to two parameters: 'source_path' (absolute local path) and 'conflict_policy' (reject, auto-rename, replace). However, with 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the other six parameters (exported, folder_path, resource_name, create_folders, timeout_seconds) are left unexplained. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 image'), the resource type ('image'), and the source ('absolute local path'). It also declares a disk write operation, which distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like fgui_get_tree or fgui_status. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when importing an image from a local path). It clearly sets the context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Since the context is clear and no exclusions are given, a 4 is appropriate.

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