import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does mention format auto-detection from extension and lists supported formats, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like creating objects in the current scene or whether the operation is reversible.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then lists formats and auto-detection. Every word contributes value with 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?

For a simple 2-parameter import tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and format list adequately. It lacks some nuance about filepath requirements (e.g., absolute vs relative) but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing supported formats, giving valid values for the 'format' parameter, and explaining that format is auto-detected if not specified. Yet it doesn't elaborate on 'filepath' beyond its name.

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 tool imports a file into the scene and lists supported formats. It distinguishes itself from export_file but does not explicitly differentiate from the load_file sibling, which might be used for Blender files.

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?

Usage is implied: import external file formats into the scene. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over load_file or other file-related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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