get_imports_exports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the response includes a 'truncated' flag and original_count/returned_count when caps fire, and that v2.9.0 callers are unaffected. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, bulleted args, and a note on version. It is not overly verbose, though the version info could be considered extra. The first sentence contains the core purpose.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the output features (truncated flag, counts). It covers all 4 parameters, version context, and behavioral details. For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, it is very complete.

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?

Description explains each parameter in detail: path, max_imports (with cap default), max_exports, library_filter (with example). Since schema has 0% coverage, the description fully compensates, providing defaults and behavior.

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 'Return symbol-level import and export tables for *path*.' It uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'symbol-level import and export tables', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sections or get_authenticode that deal with different binary aspects.

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 gives explicit argument usage and mentions the version context (v2.9.1+ to fix Gap 27) and that v2.9.0 callers are unaffected. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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