Import all research results

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds key nuance: import works even if the server hasn't formally marked the task completed, as long as results are attached. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no extraneous information. The key behavioral nuance is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a critical behavioral quirk. It could mention import behavior (e.g., duplicate handling) but is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 the only parameter 'notebook' (UUID). The description does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 'import' and the resource 'all research results from the latest finished research task as sources'. It also distinguishes from sibling tool research_import_selected by implying this imports all results.

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 specifies when to use: after a finished research task, even if not formally completed. It references research_poll for context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like research_import_selected.

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