reqs_import

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

The description discloses the important behavioral trait beyond annotations: it parses markdown tables and uses INSERT OR REPLACE, so re-importing updates existing entries. This is meaningful for an agent because it implies overwrite semantics. No contradictions with annotations exist since none were provided.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: what the tool does, the exact markdown format, the upsert behavior, and the argument. There is no redundant prose or filler.

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 single-parameter import tool, the description covers the file format, the import/update semantics, and the required argument. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is not necessary. Minor missing detail like error handling or required table header exactness prevents a perfect score.

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 description only restates the parameter as 'Path to the REQUIREMENTS.md file', which is essentially the same as the schema title 'Markdown Path'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful constraints, examples, or clarification about path format or resolution.

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 states a specific action ('Import requirements from a REQUIREMENTS.md file') and a concrete resource, which clearly differentiates this from reqs_add/reqs_update by file-based ingestion. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 intended use case is clear: use this when requirements need to be loaded from a markdown file, and re-imports will refresh existing entries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like reqs_add or reqs_update, nor does it describe when not to use this tool, so exclusions are absent.

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