list_imported_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without help. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond them — nothing on pagination, ordering, or what happens with an unknown source id — so it contributes only marginally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with a trailing clause that earns its place by naming concrete consumer tools. No redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description should hint at what is actually returned (item ids, titles, counts) to let an agent chain it into repurpose_content confidently. That gap keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Content source ID', which matches what the description says about listing from a source. The description adds no format, example, or constraint information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) plus a scoped resource (content already imported from a source), which separates it from list_content_sources and fetch_source_content by implying retrieval of already-ingested items rather than sources or raw fetches. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly.

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 gives downstream context by naming repurpose_content and create_post as consumers of the output, which helps an agent place the tool in a workflow. It does not say when to use this instead of fetch_source_content or list_content_sources, so preference between siblings is left to inference.

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