ms_gui_find_cif_import_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: it only uses open sources, downloads only once, imports into the current project, sets it current, and avoids credential bypassing. It does not fully detail error behavior or all side effects of importing, but it covers the key operational constraints.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core workflow, and every sentence contributes either an action, usage context, or an important constraint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is strong for the main workflow and the open-source/credentialed-database constraint, but with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics, return behavior, and how to route between sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for an autonomous agent.

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 only 50%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how query, formula, fileName, maxResults, importToGui, ballAndStick, documentName, or minConfidence should be used. The description therefore fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specifies a multi-step workflow: search open crystallographic databases, download a reliable CIF, import it into the current GUI project, and make it current. This distinguishes it from related siblings like ms_gui_import_current or ms_gui_download_cif_import_current by combining search with import and by narrowing to open 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before manually building a new crystal or molecular crystal.' It also explains what to do when credentialed databases are required, telling the agent to return candidates/reason rather than bypass access. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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