import_path

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the goal but does not explain how the result is returned, how 'shortest' is defined, or what happens when no chain exists. There is no mention of cycles, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 has six parameters and no output schema, yet the description is very brief. It does not explain the return format, how parameters like exclude_patterns or tsconfig affect behavior, or the meaning of 'chain' in practical terms. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides descriptions for all six parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states the tool's function: finding the shortest import chain between two files. It uses a specific verb ('find') and identifies a unique resource ('import chain') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_graph or circular_deps.

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 implies usage for tracing connections between two files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dep_graph or forward_deps. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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