hms_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses two real behavioral facts: the persistent side effect (data is saved to ~/.bambu-sentinel/hms.json) and the downstream effect of the 'retry' field on automatic reprints. It still omits whether an existing dictionary is merged or overwritten and what happens on malformed input, so it is not fully transparent.

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 action is front-loaded and packed into two sentences with the format examples, destination, and field semantics all earning their place. The nested JSON notation is dense but compact rather than redundant.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter, the description covers input format and side effects but leaves gaps an agent would want: overwrite/merge behavior on the target file, error handling for invalid JSON, and any indication of the result. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says file_path is a string, so the description must compensate - and it does by spelling out the two accepted JSON shapes and the meaning of the 'retry' values inside the file. It stops short of clarifying path resolution or file-size limits, but it substantially enriches the single parameter.

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 and resource ('Import an HMS dictionary') and pins down the exact file formats accepted plus the destination, making it unmistakable against read-oriented siblings like hms_lookup or hms_active. An agent knows precisely what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description never says when to use this versus hms_lookup, hms_active, or the other HMS-related siblings, nor does it state prerequisites. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all.

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