research_import

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that cited_only overrides source_indices and suggests increasing timeout for large notebooks. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the research task) or permission requirements, lacking full behavioral transparency.

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 concise with three sentences and a bullet list, front-loading the main action and usage condition. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, usage condition, and all parameters. It could mention error scenarios or what happens if no sources are discovered, but it is largely complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, and special behaviors (e.g., timeout increase, cited_only override). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Import discovered sources into notebook,' specifying the verb (import), resource (sources), and target (notebook). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_start (initiates research) and source_add (adds sources manually).

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 explicitly instructs to call after research_status shows 'completed,' providing a clear prerequisite and context. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for correct usage sequence.

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