memshelf_import

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds key behaviors: raw transcript stays on disk, never enters context, and warns against writing inside a shelf. It also specifies return values (metadata vs path+noise ratio).

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 informative yet concise, covering methods and workflow in a few sentences. It could benefit from bullet points for structure, but it is not verbose.

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 two-method complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description explains what each method returns and the subsequent steps (read, segment, shelve). This fully covers the tool's role in the import process.

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 does not detail individual parameters (schema coverage 0%), but the input schema already provides thorough descriptions for each property (out, path, method, etc.). The tool description adds workflow context, which meets the baseline.

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 it retro-shelves exported dialogs and lists two distinct methods (discover and extract). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on importing exported transcripts, not shelving or recalling.

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 explains when to use each method (discover to list, extract to clean) and outlines the overall workflow. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like memshelf_shelve or memshelf_recall.

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