import_kernel_build

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds that each dump group gets one lineage registration, which is a useful side-effect detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not address duplicate imports, existing lineage handling, or required permissions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently states the resource, action, and a key behavioral rule.

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 mutating import tool with three parameters and substantial sibling overlap, this description is too thin. It omits selection criteria, the meaning of sensitivity levels, the implications of source_root, and duplicate/lineage behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not the guidance needed to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is only 33%, with only path having a description. The tool description adds no meaning for sensitivity or source_root, and these parameters are left to inference from enum labels and names. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 action ('Import native compiler evidence') and a precise registration rule ('register one lineage per dump group'), which makes the core purpose clear. It differentiates from generic import_artifact or extract-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. With many sibling tools like import_artifact, import_static_analysis, and extract_kernel_validation, the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice from the phrase 'native compiler evidence' alone.

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