Import packet file

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond the annotations: requires absolute path, refuses symlinks, verifies artifact hashes and referenced records, secret-scans content, routes private/seed packets to a specific directory, and refuses duplicate packet IDs without overwriting. This is far more detail than the minimal annotations provide (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false).

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 dense sentence but packs a lot of useful information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary use case, then lists key behavioral constraints. It is slightly run-on but highly efficient; nearly every phrase adds value.

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 a write/import operation with no output schema, and the description covers the main flow: input requirements, safety verifications, routing rules, and duplicate handling. It omits details about the optional parameters (actorName, asReviewed) but those are documented in the schema. Given the complexity, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the absolute path requirement and symlink refusal for packetPath. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Use when the user hands over a packet file or unpacked packet folder from another repo, tool, or machine and wants it in this store,' which clearly states the tool's purpose: importing external packet files/folders. This verb+resource combination ('import packet file/folder') distinguishes it from siblings like create_packet and import_seed_packet.

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 a clear scenario ('when the user hands over a packet file or unpacked packet folder from another repo, tool, or machine') that tells when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, but the context is strong enough to differentiate from create_packet. Lacks explicit when-not guidance, so not a 5.

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