get_imports

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and output fields, but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or how results are paginated or truncated. Critical context is missing.

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 extremely concise (4 words) but is not a complete sentence. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, but could benefit from rephrasing for clarity (e.g., 'Lists import statements including module, names, and line numbers').

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context about the return format. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the tool lacks information on result ordering, truncation behavior (mentioned in max_results param), or how to interpret the output. It is functional but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does hint at the output format ('module, names, line'), which is not in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'imports', and explicitly mentions the returned fields (module, names, line). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependencies or get_file_dependencies, which deal with different aspects of code relationships.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_dependencies, get_file_dependencies). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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