import_project

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

The description discloses that the tool reads metadata, lists files, and returns content of specific file types. This adds context beyond the schema. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only) or error handling, but the main behavior is clearly stated.

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: first explains the tool's action, second provides precise usage instruction. No extraneous words; front-loaded with key information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and input format. It does not specify return format or error handling, but the context is sufficient for basic usage. Sibling tools exist but are not contrasted.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds specific context on what URL to pass (full claude.ai design URL from clipboard), going beyond the schema's description.

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 Claude Design project by reading metadata, listing files, and returning content of HTML/JS/JSX files. It distinguishes from siblings that handle individual operations (get_file, list_files, get_project).

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 specifies when to use it: with a full URL from 'Share to Claude Code' clipboard. It clearly explains the input format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like download_bundle or list_projects.

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