import_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the main action (import to BACKLOG.md) and mentions dry_run via schema. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrites or appends?), error handling, idempotence, or what happens on duplicate tasks.

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?

Two concise sentences (49 words) front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return value or side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns (if anything). For a file-modifying tool, more details on confirmation or error outcomes 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 has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'parses a plan document' and importing to BACKLOG.md. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Description clearly states it parses a plan document and imports tasks to BACKLOG.md, not individual files. It explicitly contrasts with personal creation and mentions promotion via promote_task, distinguishing it from siblings like add_to_backlog, create_task, and promote_task.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to populate the backlog from a roadmap or requirements doc.' It also explains the task lifecycle (stay in BACKLOG until promoted) and references promote_task. No explicit 'when not to use' for alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for a capable agent.

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