import_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and omits any side effects, such as whether current browser state is overwritten, prerequisites like file format or validity, or whether the file must come from export_state. This is a significant gap for a state-restore operation.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or repetitive content, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), a minimal description may suffice, but the lack of detail about the file format or behavior on restore leaves some gaps. It is adequate for a basic action but could benefit from noting that the file is likely from export_state and that the current state is replaced.

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 schema describes a single required 'path' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal value by implying the path points to the saved file, but it does not clarify expected format, absolute vs. relative, or any constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Restore browser state from a previously saved file' clearly specifies the action (restore), the resource (browser state), and the source (a previously saved file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_state (which saves) and other navigation/storage tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The context is clear (restore state, likely after exporting), but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The sibling export_state implies the pairing, but the description itself offers no direct advice.

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