Ground a set of imports on their installed versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (subpath normalization) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explain the return format, how missing packages are handled, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that returns data.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, and every sentence contributes meaning (what it does, when to use it, how to pass inputs). It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description explains the 'what' and 'when' well. However, without an output schema, it omits the return structure (e.g., a map of package names to versions) and error cases, making it not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the result.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing users to 'Pass bare import specifiers' and clarifying that subpaths are normalized, which is not fully captured in the schema's brief example. This exceeds the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('resolve'/'return the exact installed version') targeting a clear resource (a set of imports) and scope ('in this project'). It also distinguishes itself from likely siblings by emphasizing batch resolution ('each') and subpath normalization, making it clear this is for multiple imports.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this at the start of writing/editing a file' to ground library calls. It clearly indicates the intended context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools like installed_version or project_versions.

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