Import Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the behavioral profile is defined. The description adds that it converts to Markdown and returns metadata and word count, but does not disclose potential side effects or error conditions. This is adequate but not extra.

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 sentence that is clear and to the point, but it could be slightly more concise. It effectively front-loads the purpose but could be broken into two sentences for clarity.

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 covers the core functionality and return values (converted content, metadata, word count). However, it does not address what happens if both file_path and raw_text are provided, error handling, or size limits. With no output schema, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters well. The description mentions importing from file or raw text and lists formats, but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema's definitions. 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?

The description clearly states the verb (imports), the specific resources (documents in various formats or raw text), and the outcome (converts to Markdown for SDD processing). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sdd_batch_import and sdd_import_transcript by emphasizing single document import and mentioning raw text.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdd_batch_import for batch imports or sdd_import_transcript for transcripts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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