getImports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of working 'without the IDE server', which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't describe output format, error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens with malformed code - leaving gaps for a tool with no output 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?

Three tightly focused sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core functionality with examples, second explains the purpose, third provides crucial operational context. 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and operational context but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't describe what the output looks like (list format, structure), error handling, or edge cases. Given the complexity of code analysis, more completeness would be helpful.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('Find all import statements'), the resource ('PureScript code'), and provides concrete examples ('import Data.List', 'import Prelude'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it 'Works without the IDE server' (unlike pursIde* tools).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Shows what external modules the code depends on') and distinguishes it from IDE-dependent tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the siblings (e.g., when to use getModuleName instead).

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