import_desktop

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

Goes well past the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). It discloses what is read (encrypted local DB, key via macOS Keychain or Linux secret-tool, possible access prompt), what is written (local store only, nothing sent to Signal), idempotency semantics ('already stored messages are skipped, re-running is safe but slow'), and a concurrency constraint ('only one import can run at a time').

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and benefit, then prerequisites, then safety/idempotency/return shape. Every sentence carries operational information, but the description is dense and runs long for a zero-param tool; a minor trim would tighten it.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({imported, skipped, total, max_ts_ms, platform, source}). Combined with prerequisites, safety guarantees, idempotency, and the sync_desktop alternative, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'No parameters' and adds no misleading param info, though there is nothing further to clarify beyond confirming the tool takes no input.

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+scope: 'Import the full message history from Signal Desktop on this machine into signal-mcp's local store.' It also names the concrete benefit (older messages visible to get_conversation, search_messages, export_messages) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling sync_desktop, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Use sync_desktop for later updates; it only reads messages newer than the last sync.' Prerequisites are spelled out (Signal Desktop installed and opened at least once, sqlcipher installed, database key available), which tells the agent exactly when this call will and won't work.

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