import_folder

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 primary action (import all media files) but omits details about default behavior for recursive import, whether a new bin is created when binName is omitted, handling of unsupported files, or side effects on existing assets. It is accurate but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. No unnecessary words or filler; it is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

This is a relatively simple operation, and the description adequately captures the main purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning default behaviors (e.g., whether recursion is on by default) or typical error conditions. For a straightforward tool, the description is sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, providing clear meaning for folderPath, binName, and recursive. The description adds no additional context about how the parameters affect behavior, such as the default when binName is not specified or the default value of recursive. Since schema documentation is complete, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool imports all media files from a folder into the current project. It specifies the action (import), the resource (folder), and the destination (current project), effectively distinguishing it from other import tools like import_media or import_sequences, which focus on individual files or specific sequence imports.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where using import_media or other import methods would be more appropriate, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., project open, path validity). Users must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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