get_bulk_import_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it goes well beyond the obvious: it notes the call is free/static/no charge, discloses that unresolvable references are silently skipped, warns that stage directions in dialogue will be spoken, states that filled prompts are used verbatim without platform overrides, and says frame_visual_contract is ignored during import.

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?

Despite being long, the description is dense and structured with visual markers (★, bold, inline code), front-loading the core purpose before usage guidance and contract key points. Every section earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining what the returned contract contains, and it does so thoroughly: template, example, external prompt, checklist, enums, limits, top-level structure, deduplication rules, reference behavior, and import semantics. An agent has enough context to call and use the result correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description adds useful semantic context by naming the returned contract fields and the top-level JSON shape, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieving the format contract for bulk-import JSON. It enumerates exactly what the contract contains (template, filled_example, external_prompt, checklist, enums, limits), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling import_storyboard_table by clarifying the structured-JSON vs text-table split.

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?

It explicitly states when to call this tool: when the customer has structured data or wants an external AI to produce JSON, and it says to call it before bulk_import_storyboards. It also gives an exclusion: if the customer has a text storyboard table, use import_storyboard_table instead.

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