get_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('list'), which is consistent with no destructiveness. However, it does not disclose whether imports are sorted, or if modules are hierarchy-full or flat. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 with 8 words, no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return format. However, it lacks details like whether the grouping is by module name or path, if imports are resolved or raw names, or if the list is complete for the binary. This is a simple listing tool, but more context on grouping semantics would help.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not needed to explain parameters. It correctly adds nothing to the schema, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no misleading info.

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 the tool lists imported functions grouped by module. The verb 'list' and resource 'imported functions' are clear, but there is no differentiation from sibling tools like get_exports or list_functions that may also list related items.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing (e.g., list_functions, get_exports, list_strings), the description should specify that this is for imports specifically, but it does not give exclusions or scenarios.

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