import_hook_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only hints at being 'low-level' and 'for compatibility' but does not disclose if it is destructive, what side effects occur, or what the output is. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point, which is good for conciseness, but it lacks necessary detail about parameters and behavior, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the complexity (4 params, 2 required, nested object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It only mentions the tool's niche use case and preferred alternative, ignoring all parameter semantics, return values, and behavioral details.

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 description provides no information about any of the four parameters (targetPackage, serial, configJson, dryRun). It adds no value beyond what the schema gives, which is just names and types.

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 states it is a 'Low-level config import for compatibility,' which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what exactly the import does or how it differs from the preferred alternative, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer apply_algorithm_aide_config for normal use,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling, and naming the alternative directly.

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