mcquest_find_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'READ ONLY', enumerates searched file extensions, and describes the output format as 'file:line:import-statement'. This gives the agent a solid understanding of scope and side-effect safety beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two sentences contain zero filler. The 'READ ONLY' safety qualifier is front-loaded, followed by a precise statement of the action, scope, and output format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and an agent can likely invoke it with 'target' and the default path. However, the description does not mention that 'path' is the directory to search or that 'max_results' limits output, and with 0% schema coverage those details remain underspecified. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here, but parameter gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It clarifies that 'target' is a component/module, but it does not explain 'path' or 'max_results' beyond what their names imply. The description adds some semantic value for the main parameter but leaves the other two largely implicit.

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 and resource: 'Find ES module imports that reference a target component/module.' It also scopes the search to .ts, .tsx, .js, and .jsx files. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mcquest_find_usages, but the import-specific phrasing makes the differentiation reasonably clear.

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 mentions 'Useful for discovering which files depend on a module,' which implies a primary use case. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when to prefer this over siblings like mcquest_find_usages or mcquest_find_files. The usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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