import_from_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 does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the server reads the file in-process, path is restricted to the data directory with absolute-path/.. traversal/outside-root rejected, and merge semantics mirror import_graph. However, it omits error behavior, outcome details, and any mutation consequences, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences with the core purpose and key constraints front-loaded; each sentence carries distinct information (scale, processing model, path restriction, merge semantics). Minor clutter comes from the opaque [5-E]/[11]/[100K+] spec references, but overall it is tight and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers core semantics, scale, processing model, and path constraints, which is solid for a moderate-complexity import tool. Gaps remain: format parameter behavior, error handling on invalid paths or malformed files, and outcome/effect specifics. For a mutation tool with no annotations, a bit more would make it complete.

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 adds real meaning for 'path' (directory restriction and rejection rules) and for 'merge' (points to import_graph semantics). But 'format' receives no explanation at all, and the compensation is only partial across the three parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: bulk import from a file inside the server data directory. It also carves out its niche versus siblings by noting the 100K+ scale and that push_batch's MCP limit does not apply, making its scope distinct. The opaque spec references ([5-E], [11]) do not obscure the core purpose.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the 100K+ scale and 'MCP 상한 미적용' note signal that this is the tool for large imports where push_batch would be capped. It references import_graph for merge semantics, giving a partial cross-tool pointer, but offers no explicit 'when not to use' conditions or a direct alternative-selection statement.

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