tc_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses validation of task id and workspace path, rejection of duplicate tasks, '..' traversal and symlink targets, and rollback of already-written files on failure. Remaining gaps are minor — it does not say whether existing files are overwritten or what permissions are needed.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and use context first, then the safety/validation and failure semantics. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety and rollback behavior is well covered for a mutation-class tool with no annotations. It could still state the prerequisite state of the target workspace or what a successful import leaves behind.

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 baseline is 3 and both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the cross-tool linkage that 'package' is the path returned by tc_export, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (导入/import) and resource (tc_export 生成的交接包), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tc_export by naming it as the producer of its input. An agent can identify this as the inverse of tc_export without opening either 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?

Gives clear context for use: continuing a task in another directory or machine from a tc_export package. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as tc_resume or tc_restore, which could be the right tool for continuing in the same location, so a sibling-selection rule 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.