import_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool imports the file, opens it in CodeBrowser, optionally runs auto-analysis, and sends a log notification when analysis finishes. This is good coverage, though it does not describe edge-case behaviors such as overwriting or import failures.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds focused behavioral context and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 output schema covers return values and the description covers behavior, parameters, defaults, and analysis flow, nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this tool. The guidance on raw firmware versus auto-detected formats is especially valuable 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explains every parameter, gives defaults, provides concrete language examples, and clarifies how compiler_spec relates to the language default. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import a binary file from disk into the current Ghidra project.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools, which manage instances and tool groups rather than importing files.

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 gives clear conditional guidance for when to specify language and compiler_spec versus relying on auto-detection for known formats. It does not discuss alternatives because the sibling tools are unrelated, but the context for using the tool correctly is well stated.

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