import_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return value (raw_markdown and metadata) but fails to mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if URL is unreachable or file not found). This is insufficient for a clear behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise, comprising two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and input, the second defines the output. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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's low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers input and output. It mentions both local files and URLs, and specifies the return type. Minor gap: no guidance on mutual exclusivity of parameters (url/path) beyond the schema's 'required' field.

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 100% with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description merely restates the source types without adding new meaning or constraints, matching the baseline score per the rubric.

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 explicitly states the verb 'import' and resource 'original content (local markdown file or URL webpage)', distinguishing it from sibling tools (estimate_originality, transform_for_wechat, save_to_wechat_draft) which handle estimation, transformation, or saving.

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 implies usage for preparing content for WeChat public account processing, which indirectly suggests when to use it (before transformation/saving). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, providing only minimal guidance.

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