research_import_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no OCR, no execution of instructions embedded in file content (a prompt-injection guard), and no model calls. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations, though it does not state permissions or side effects on the study record.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the formats, then the preserved metadata, then the exclusions. It is efficiently structured with no filler; the only cost is that the semicolon-separated constraints are packed tightly enough to be easy to skim past.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers capability and constraints but leaves the parameters and the resulting effect on the study (what record is created, what is returned) unexplained. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is parameter and outcome detail.

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% for all three parameters (path, title, study_id), so the description is the only place semantics could be added, and it explains none of them. It implies path is a local filesystem location but gives no format, size, or extension guidance, and says nothing about the study_id pattern or how title is used.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (extract/import a document) plus the supported source formats (TXT/MD/DOCX/text-based PDF) and what metadata is preserved (file hash, source location). This makes it distinguishable in spirit from research_import_analysis, but the description never names a sibling, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is implicit negative guidance: '文字型 PDF' and '无 OCR' tell the agent this tool is not for scanned/image PDFs, which effectively scopes selection. However, no alternative tool or positive precondition is named, so the agent gets a boundary but not a routing rule.

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