Import new sessions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the write and safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: default dry-run behavior, the confirm gate, the no-overwrite guarantee that makes repetition safe, a possible site/ rebuild side effect, a 256 KB output cap and a 120 s timeout. The only shortfall is that the return payload is described in size, not in structure.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: what it converts, the safe default, the confirm requirement with the user-ask, and the operational envelope (idempotency, site rebuild, output size, timeout). It is front-loaded with purpose and scope. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return (converter output, last 256 KB) and a failure condition (120 s). Safety, idempotency, side effects, and prerequisites are all covered for a mutating import tool. The only gap is that the shape of the returned converter output is unspecified beyond its size.

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% and each parameter already documents its own interaction ('Without confirm=true the call always runs as a dry-run regardless of dry_run'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'writes only with dry_run=false and confirm=true' restates the same rule rather than adding syntax or format detail. This is the baseline case where the schema, not the prose, carries parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — convert local agent session stores (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, ZCode, OpenCode) into markdown under raw/sessions/ — and names the boundary against a sibling by pointing at wiki_list_sources for the coverage question. An agent can distinguish this from list/query/search siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition explicitly ('Use it when wiki_list_sources lacks recent sessions'), the safe default (dry run), the exact gate for writing (dry_run=false plus confirm=true), and a human-in-the-loop prerequisite ('ask the user before that'). Nothing about when to call versus when not to call is left to inference.

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