ida_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential dependencies (e.g., whether IDA must have a loaded binary), return format, or any failure modes. It is not misleading, but adds limited behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loaded sentence, with no filler or redundant details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main option. It does not describe the return format, but for a straightforward getter, this is acceptable. The sibling context reinforces that it is one of many IDA inspection tools, and the description is sufficient for basic usage.

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%, with the 'module' parameter already described as 'Optional DLL name filter (e.g. 'kernel32')'. The tool description restates this as 'optionally filtered by DLL name', adding little new meaning. The example in the schema is preserved, but there is no additional semantic enrichment beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves the import table with an optional DLL name filter. The verb 'Get' and resource 'import table' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from similar tools like ida_exports and ida_names by explicitly targeting 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 implies usage when import information is needed, and the optional filter parameter indicates a scoping use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., ida_exports for exports) or any exclusions, so guidance is minimal.

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