list_imports

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does reveal that the result is scoped to a single file and that exports are included only when the language supports them. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the result shape is, or how max_tokens affects output.

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 with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. The language-conditioned export clause is efficient, though slightly cryptic.

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, this definition is too thin. An agent is not told what the result looks like, how language detection works, or how max_tokens influences the output, leaving the tool minimally viable at best.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It clarifies that 'path' refers to a single file, but it does not describe 'max_tokens,' its truncation behavior, or the expected path format.

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 identifies the resource ('dependency edges out of one file') and adds an export edge case, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_symbols or ast_query. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' but the tool name and phrasing make the action reasonably 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool rather than file_outline, ast_query, or search_symbols. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, so an agent must infer the correct usage from the name and the bare description.

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