memshelf_import

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

Annotations already declare write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and no destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable trait 'without pulling it through context' and that extract writes to a working file, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what the write touches.

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 the core purpose followed by the method breakdown in two tight clauses. No filler, though the sentence is dense with backticked terms that blur quick scanning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the dual-mode workflow adequately, leaving only minor gaps around preconditions and parameter specifics.

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 adds meaning for the `method` enum by describing both modes, but with reported schema coverage at 0% it does not compensate for path, out, select, markers, or limit. It only partially carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific action (retro-shelve an exported dialog) and immediately breaks it into its two operational modes (`discover` lists, `extract` cleans and writes). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like memshelf_shelve, but the verb+resource is clear enough to place it.

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?

It distinguishes the two methods by function ('discover' lists conversations, 'extract' cleans one to a working file), which implies which to pick. However it never states prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how this differs from memshelf_shelve or memshelf_index, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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