import_surface

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

Description mentions redaction of values and rejection of out-of-scope endpoints, providing some behavioral context. With no annotations, more details (e.g., destructive nature, auth requirements) would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key behaviors. It is front-loaded and free of clutter.

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?

The description covers the import function and key behaviors but omits details like output or prerequisites. Given the presence of an output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It mentions file types (HAR/OpenAPI/Postman) relating to input_format, but does not explain base_url, file_path, or session_id meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool imports local HAR/OpenAPI/Postman files, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the import function is distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_surface or scope_check. The description implies usage for importing files but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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