import_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a CodeBrowser, optionally starts auto-analysis, and sends a log notification upon completion. This is sufficient behavioral context for a file import tool, though it does not mention error handling or conflicts with existing imports.

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 well-structured with a brief opening sentence followed by additional details and an Args section. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the Args section could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced in the description, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks details about return values or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the file is already imported or the path is invalid), which would be helpful for the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all five parameters in the Args section, providing examples for language and compiler_spec. This adds significant value beyond the input schema alone.

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 imports a binary file into a Ghidra project, opens it in CodeBrowser, and optionally runs auto-analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_tools and search_tools which have unrelated purposes.

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 provides guidance on when to specify language/compiler_spec (for raw binaries) and notes that auto-detection works for common formats. It implicitly tells the agent not to specify language for standard formats, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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