generate_import

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses CEM exports and package.json, and returns two types of imports. However, it does not mention if the tool modifies state, requires a loaded library (implied by libraryId), or any side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail on prerequisites or consequences.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second specifies the return format. Every word earns its place, and the structure front-loads the key purpose.

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 simple generation tool, the description covers the return value (side-effect and named import) and data sources. No output schema exists, so this provides necessary context. It could be improved by clarifying the role of libraryId, but given that is in the schema, the description is nearly 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters; it only mentions the general data sources. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 generates import statements for a component based on CEM exports and package.json, and specifies the return type (side-effect and named import). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_component_imports, which checks imports rather than generating them.

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 when to use (when needing import statements) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. No comparison or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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