qualify_artifact_import

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

The description discloses a two-phase behavior: validating existing bytes followed by creating an import run, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It adds sequencing context beyond what the annotations express, but says nothing about failure behavior, what 'semantically qualified' means, or side effects on the source artifact. No contradiction with annotations.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary verb and contains no filler. The jargon phrase 'semantically qualified' slightly reduces readability, but the structure is appropriately compact for the information conveyed.

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?

The description is insufficient for correct invocation: an agent cannot determine when to choose this over import_artifact, what profile values mean, or what constitutes a successful qualification. The output schema covers return values, but the core decision context and parameter semantics remain unexplained at 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param-explanation burden, but it only loosely hints at meanings ('preserved native bytes' suggests what artifact_id refers to). It does not explain source_run_id, what profile selects (the enum's single value py-spy-chrometrace is left unexplained), or how each parameter maps to the validation/creation steps.

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 chain: validate preserved native bytes, then create a semantically qualified import run. The verb is specific and the resource (import run) is identifiable, and the 'qualified' language distinguishes it from the plain import_artifact sibling even though no sibling is named.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 100 siblings including import_artifact, import_static_analysis, and numerous extract_* tools, the description offers no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when qualification is needed.

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