who_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that results come from the import graph (static analysis, not text matching) and that the list is complete, but it omits permissions, performance characteristics, and any caveats about dynamic imports or unresolved paths.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the return contents and the contrast with grep. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by enumerating what comes back (symbols, lines, re-exports) and framing the result as complete. For a simple two-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient, with only minor gaps around edge cases.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'file path or exported symbol' roughly restates the schema's target text. The absolute_paths parameter is never mentioned in the description and gains no extra meaning.

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 question with verb and resource: which files import a given target, derived from the import graph. It explicitly covers both accepted target kinds and distinguishes itself from grep-style searching, so an agent can separate it from siblings like exports_in or search_files.

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 question phrasing plus 'No grep needed' tells the agent this is the go-to tool for reverse-dependency lookup rather than text search. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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