research_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful runtime behavior: source_indices defaults to all, timeout defaults to 300 and should be increased for large notebooks, and cited_only overrides source_indices. It does not describe side effects, error conditions, or whether imports are idempotent, but the covered behavior is genuinely useful.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then structured with a precondition and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds relevant workflow or parameter information, with no 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 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is complete for invocation: it supplies the required workflow state, all argument meanings, the default behavior, and customization guidance. The presence of an output schema means return value details do not need to be duplicated here.

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 input schema provides 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained, including notebook_id, task_id, source_indices semantics, timeout guidance, and cited_only override behavior. This makes the entire parameter surface safely invocable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import discovered sources into notebook.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like research_status, source_add, and notebook_* tools by tying it to the research workflow and notebook destination.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Call after research_status shows status=completed.' It also explains when cited_only should be used. It does not name an alternative tool or exclude other cases, so the guidance is clear but not as strong as an explicit when-not/alternative comparison.

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