Import Directory

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

Beyond the annotations (all false, no safety hints), the description adds valuable behavioral details: files over 30MB are skipped, hidden files are skipped, subdirectories are traversed recursively by default, and YAML frontmatter tags are merged into documents. This gives the agent a good sense of what will happen during import, though it doesn't clarify behavior for existing documents or partial failures.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by relevant bullet-like behavior details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it's front-loaded with the primary action.

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 bulk import tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: supported formats, size limits, hidden files, recursion, and frontmatter handling. It doesn't explain the 'category' parameter or what happens on naming conflicts, but these are minor gaps given the output schema exists and the description is otherwise informative.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'directory' (the source path) and 'recursive' (set recursive=False for single-level) and partially describes tag handling via frontmatter. However, 'vault' and 'category' are not explained, and the 'tags' parameter's meaning (likely tags applied to all imported docs) is ambiguous—it might be confused with frontmatter tags.

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 'Bulk import all supported files from a directory into a vault,' using a specific verb (import), resource (directory into vault), and scope (bulk). It also lists supported file types and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_add_doc (single file) or vault_import_notion (Notion-specific).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to bulk import files from a directory into a vault. It mentions recursive traversal and the ability to set recursive=False for single-level imports. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for single-file import), but the purpose is unambiguous enough.

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