import_litchi

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

The description reveals automatic parsing and saving behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and adequately covers the core behavioral aspects (import and save). It does not mention side effects like overwriting or required permissions, but the behavior is safe and straightforward for a data import.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first sentence describes what the tool does, second explains key details (format parsing, auto-save). No filler, highly efficient.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, and no enums, the description fully explains the data format, the action, and the result (saved mission). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions for both parameters: 'csv_content' described as 'Raw Litchi CSV file content' and 'name' described as 'Name for the new mission'. The description adds only context about parsing Litchi format and auto-saving, which is already implied by the tool name. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Import a Litchi CSV file and create a new waypoint mission from it', clearly identifying the verb (import), resource (Litchi CSV file), and output (waypoint mission). It also specifies the file format, which differentiates it from other import/creation tools like create_mission.

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 implicitly indicates using this tool when you have a Litchi CSV file and want to create a mission. It clarifies that parsing is automatic and the mission is saved. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., for other CSV formats).

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