mind_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about what importing does to existing data (overwrite, dedupe, append), what permissions or vault access are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on partial failure — all material for a write operation into a knowledge base.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 write-style import tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a knowledge-base target, the description omits result behavior, conflict handling, and target-library semantics. The schema covers inputs but nothing compensates for the missing behavioral context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so path, source, and library are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., accepted source values or how the target library is created). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing markdown files from a directory, with examples of the source ecosystem (Obsidian). An agent can tell this is a bulk file-ingestion tool rather than a query or mutation of individual items. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like mind_ingest, mind_learn, or mind_vault_store, which likely also bring external content into the store.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus mind_ingest, mind_learn, or mind_vault_store, and no stated preconditions (directory must exist, files must be markdown, whether re-imports are safe). The only contextual hint is the Obsidian parenthetical, which is an example source, not a usage rule.

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