requirements_import

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

With only annotations available (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description carries real weight: it discloses the write side effect (a content-addressed snapshot), the returned value is truncated to the first chunk, the SHA-256 is recorded, and it explicitly warns that source text is data, never tool instructions (prompt-injection defense). It also bounds behavior with 'No OCR or semantic case generation'. None of this is in the annotations or schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the extraction verb and resource, then the side effect, then the return behavior, then constraints. Each sentence adds information; nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's disclosure that only the first chunk is returned and that a snapshot is saved is essential and present. Remaining gaps — snapshot location, chunk size, and how to fetch later chunks — are minor but real for an import/read workflow.

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 single path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'local ... inside the workspace' does imply the path is workspace-relative, but it never states the expected format, whether it is relative or absolute, or what happens on a missing file — so the gap is only partially closed.

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 ('Extract local .pdf/.docx/.md/.txt requirement text') plus the side effect ('Saves an content-addressed text snapshot'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling requirements_read by the word 'Extract' and the supported source formats, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 scope exclusion 'No OCR or semantic case generation is performed' implicitly tells the agent not to use this for scanned/image PDFs or for generating test cases, which is genuinely useful. However there is no explicit routing to requirements_read for subsequent chunks, and no statement of prerequisites for the path argument.

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