import_fable_trace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool never executes commands from the trace, describes the nodes it creates, and discloses the default JSONL filtering behavior that skips Opus/Sonnet rows. This is strong, safety-relevant transparency for an importer.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds use cases, side effects, and default behavior, each earning its place.

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 purpose, safety, and default filtering well, but it omits return value behavior and leaves key parameter semantics unexplained. With no output schema, the agent is left unsure what the importer returns on success, which matters for follow-up actions.

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 compensate for all four parameters, but it does not. It indirectly clarifies include_non_fable through the default filtering note, but trace_path, workflow_name, and max_events receive no semantic explanation beyond their names and schema defaults.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Read-only importer for Claude/Fable JSONL traces or workflow result JSON.' It further specifies what the tool creates (WORKFLOW, WORKER nodes, trace events, STRUCTURED_RESULT nodes), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling write/record tools like record_execution or start_workflow.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use when analyzing prior Fable sessions or preserving an external multi-agent workflow in CPG.' It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide selection among the listed siblings.

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