import

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

With no annotations, the description informs about behavioral traits: it 'refreshes the cache' and 'absorbs into the home base with new local id and provenance metadata'. It also notes the alias. Lacks detail on idempotency or overwrite behavior, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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?

Description is well-structured with example invocations and a warning. It uses bullet points and code formatting for clarity. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tighter but still effective.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but output schema exists, the description adequately explains tool behavior and parameters. It covers the two modes of operation and key constraints. Lacks return value details, but output schema presumably covers that. Overall sufficient for an AI agent.

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%, but description explains `id`, `openbox`, `space` alias with usage examples. It clarifies `space=` is alias for `openbox=`. The `help` parameter is not described, but it's self-explanatory. Overall adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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's purpose: 'bring an openbox's footprints into the home base' with two distinct use cases (cache refresh vs full import). It distinguishes from sibling tool `local()` for intra-workspace moves, achieving high specificity.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for cache refresh without home base change, and for full import with provenance. It also tells when not to use: 'moving items between local projects/workspaces is local(), not import()'. This is exemplary.

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