db_import_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a dry-run preview, which implies no data modification, and it checks for id conflicts and whether a database clear is needed. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond a simple 'preview' label, but it does not explicitly say 'does not modify data' or mention any auth/rate-limit 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's core function and key aspects. Every phrase adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema (so return values are covered externally), and the description effectively summarizes its purpose and key checks. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter semantics, which would make it fully self-contained. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete but has a minor gap in contextual guidance.

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% for the three parameters (path, merge, format). The description mentions '来源文件' (source file) which maps to 'path' but does not explain how 'merge' or 'format' affect the preview output, nor does it clarify any parameter-specific behavior. The description focuses on outputs, not inputs, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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: '预览导入影响' (preview import impact). It enumerates specific outputs: source file, number of records to import, id conflict detection, and whether database clearing is needed (dry-run). This distinguishes it from db_import_apply, which executes the import, and from other preview tools by mentioning import-specific impact.

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 usage through the term 'dry-run' and its role as a preview tool, suggesting it should be used before db_import_apply. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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