get_module_imports_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the content it returns (import options, subpaths, importmap snippets), but never states that this is a non-destructive read-only lookup, whether it reflects a pinned Anime.js version, or how the answer is shaped. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the three import strategies with concrete examples. Efficient and readable, with only minor redundancy against the schema's own examples.

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?

All three parameters are optional and there is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. For a simple read-only reference tool the coverage is essentially sufficient, with only the read-only/no-side-effect reassurance missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with their own examples, and the baseline is 3. The description restates the same subpath and importmap concepts at a high level but adds no new syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta las opciones de importación modular de Anime.js v4') and enumerates the three modes of import it covers: main module, granular subpaths, and importmaps. An agent can tell it is a reference/lookup tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby get_installation_guide or get_migration_guide.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic — reach for it when you need to know how to import a given piece of Anime.js v4. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of when a sibling such as get_installation_guide or search_anime_docs would be the better choice.

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