import_json

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description does not contradict these, but it also does not add much behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or whether existing stories are overwritten. Given the annotations are present, the description adds minimal extra value.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose and the CLI isomorphism. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and there is no wasted text. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool has one parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations are present. The description is adequate for a simple import tool, but it could be more complete by mentioning what happens on import (e.g., validation, overwrite behavior) or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 schema description coverage is 100%: the 'stories' parameter is described as a list of story objects with required 'title' and optional fields. The description adds the context that it is a batch import and isomorphic with CLI, but does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 stories from structured JSON, with a specific verb ('import') and resource ('stories'). It also mentions it is isomorphic with the CLI 'import json' command, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like create_story or scan_stories. However, it could be more explicit about the exact scope (e.g., batch vs single) but the '批量' (batch) is included.

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 implies usage for batch importing stories from JSON, and the mention of CLI isomorphism provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_story (for single story creation) or validate (for validation). No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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