list_imports

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is 'import table grouped by DLL', which is a behavioral detail. It does not mention any side effects, performance impact, or special states (e.g., whether the module must be loaded), but for a read-only tool, the absence of such caveats is acceptable. The analytical hints add value but are not behavioral disclosures.

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 concise, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and interpretation hints in the second. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more informative about alternatives, but overall it is efficient.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'ida_imports' and does not clarify whether this tool applies to IDA, x64dbg, or another context. The analytical hints add context but do not resolve this ambiguity.

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 input schema's description covers the only parameter (module) thoroughly: 'Optional module name. If omitted, uses main module.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get import table grouped by DLL.' This specifies the resource (imports) and the presentation format (grouped by DLL). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'ida_imports', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it does not fully differentiate.

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 second sentence provides implied usage guidance by mapping import categories to malware traits ('Network imports → C2; crypto imports → ransomware; anti-debug imports → evasion.'). This suggests when the tool is useful for malware analysis, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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