import_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the basic action and destination. It does not mention side effects, whether existing media is replaced or duplicated, default recursion behavior, supported file types, or whether a bin is created. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence (17 words) that is front-loaded with the action and destination. Every word adds value, with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about potential duplication behavior, default recursive settings, or success/failure indicators. It could be more complete for a mutation operation.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (folderPath, binName, recursive). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter details well.

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 what the tool does: 'Imports all media files from a folder into the current Premiere Pro project.' The verb 'Imports' is specific, the resource ('all media files from a folder') is precise, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like import_media (individual files) and import_sequences (sequences).

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 the use case: importing all media from a folder. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as import_media or import_sequences, and there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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