list_imports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List' but does not state whether the operation is safe, how pagination works (limit/offset are present in schema), or what the return format contains, leaving significant gaps.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it maximally efficient for its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description provides no parameter semantics, no usage context, and no behavioral details, which is inadequate for a tool with undocumented inputs and no annotations.

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 has zero description coverage for its two parameters (limit and offset), and the description adds no meaning for either. The agent must guess the purpose and expected values of limit and offset from their names alone, which is insufficient.

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 ('List') and resource ('imported (external) symbols and their libraries'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_exports or list_functions. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or the context in which imports appear, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the word 'imported'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_exports or list_data_items. No prerequisites (e.g., requires a loaded binary) or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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