batch_import

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether imports overwrite existing files, what happens on unsupported formats, whether recursive traversal is default (though a recursive parameter exists), or any failure/rollback behavior. The description is too terse to reveal behavioral traits beyond the basic import action.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple batch operation, though it could include a brief note on format options without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with three parameters (one required) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits essential details about the format parameter's accepted values, recursive behavior, and any output or error handling. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves critical decision-making to the agent. Sibling tools share the 'import' context without differentiation, making completeness notably lacking.

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 fully for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'given format' and 'directory', but does not clarify allowed format values, the default null for format (possibly meaning all files?), or the recursive flag (including its default and effect). The 'recursive' parameter is entirely unaddressed.

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 action ('Import all files of a given format from a directory') with a specific verb and scope, identifying it as a batch operation. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling import_file or batch_export, so differentiation relies on the word 'all' and 'format', which is a minor gap.

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 batch_import versus existing siblings like import_file or batch_export. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent cannot determine when this tool is preferable over alternatives without further context.

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