get_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states it lists imports (a read operation) and details what is included (named imports, defaults, namespaces), but does not disclose any edge cases (e.g., empty files, invalid syntax) or whether it follows dependencies transitively.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action ('List all imports') and adds specifics. It wastes no words, though it could be even more concise by omitting the parenthetical (redundant with the output description).

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the basic purpose and output structure. However, it lacks any context about error behavior (e.g., if file doesn't exist) or whether imports are resolved relative to project root or import paths.

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% for the single 'file' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the file path beyond what the schema already states ('Path to the file (relative to project root)').

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('imports in a file') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'with their details (named imports, defaults, namespaces).' Sibling tools like 'organize_imports' or 'get_outline' have different purposes, making this scope clear.

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 when you need to inspect imports in a file, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'organize_imports' or 'get_symbols' (which also deals with file symbols). No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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