check_imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what issues are checked, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior: what format the results come in, whether it's a read-only analysis or modifies code, what happens with invalid input, or any performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and provides specific examples of what's checked. Every part of the sentence serves a clear informational purpose with zero waste.

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, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (analysis results, error messages, structured data), how results are formatted, or what happens when issues are found. Given the complexity of code analysis and the lack of structured output information, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'language') with their types and requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Checks import statements in code for common issues like circular dependencies, unused imports, and missing modules.' It specifies the verb ('checks'), resource ('import statements in code'), and provides concrete examples of issues detected. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_dependencies' or 'validate_code', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'check_dependencies', 'lint_code', and 'validate_code' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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