research_import

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses that cited_only overrides source_indices, timeout defaults to 300 seconds (increase for large notebooks). Does not mention if action is destructive or side effects, but adequate for a non-obvious 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage condition, followed by clear argument list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Covers all 5 parameters (2 required) with explanations, includes usage order, and references output schema (though not shown). Without annotations, provides sufficient completeness for invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description explains each parameter: notebook_id, task_id, source_indices (default all), timeout (default 300, increase for large), cited_only (overrides source_indices). Adds meaning beyond schema's type info.

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 the verb 'import' and resource 'discovered sources into notebook'. It also provides context that it should be used after research_status shows completed, distinguishing it from other tools like source_add or note.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('after research_status shows status="completed"'). Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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