ap_import_envmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions reporting the envmap name, but it does not describe side effects on the scene, potential errors, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic import operation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary words.

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 provides enough context for a simple import tool: it specifies input type, the operation, and the reported output. However, it does not address error conditions or interactions with the project state, which could be relevant in a fuller context.

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 parameter 'path' is described in the schema as 'HDR/EXR image. Absolute path, forward slashes (backslashes are converted for you).' The description in the tool text adds a clear detail about path format handling, which goes slightly beyond the schema description.

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 that the tool imports an HDR image as an environment map and reports the resulting envmap name. It also references the underlying script command, making the purpose 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 this tool is specifically for HDR environment map import, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like ap_import_asset or ap_set_envmap_params, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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