import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the creation of a context entry and index update, and clarifies the tool expects already-read content. It could mention potential overwrite behavior or access needs, but is sufficiently 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 description is two sentences, very concise. It covers the main action and a key constraint (AI already read content). However, it could be structured with bullet points for side effects, but remains effective.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description lacks details on return value, error conditions, or behavior when file type mismatches. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it lists supported file types and implies the section auto-detection. This is adequate but does not enhance understanding significantly.

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', the resource 'file into the repo as context', and the side effects (creates context entry and updates organisation.md). It distinguishes from siblings like list_context_files and search_context by specifying it adds new content.

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 notes that the AI agent should pass file content it has already read, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like search_context for existing files.

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