ast-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'read-only', which clarifies it's a safe operation with no mutations. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if the file doesn't exist) or performance aspects like handling large files, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and an example, with no wasted sentences. Each part earns its place by adding value: the first sentence defines the tool, the second provides context, and the guidelines and example enhance usability.

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 parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral safety, and parameter context, addressing all necessary aspects without redundancy.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter in an example ('file_path="/abs/path/to/module.py"'), indicating it should be an absolute path. This provides useful context beyond the schema's basic string type, though it could clarify format expectations more explicitly.

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 ('Return all import statements') and resource ('in a source file'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_import or remove_import by focusing on read-only retrieval of dependencies. It explicitly mentions the output format ('as a multi-line string'), which adds clarity beyond the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to see a file's dependencies without reading the entire file') and when not to use it ('Don't use this when: You want to add/remove imports'), with clear alternatives named (add_import, remove_import). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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