List post CSV imports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts — results are scoped to the caller's own imports and each entry includes counts — but says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope ('caller's') front-loaded. Efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to characterize the returned job records and counts, and it doesn't. Combined with undocumented pagination parameters and no sibling disambiguation, an agent has to guess at both call shape and response shape.

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?

Both parameters (limit, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, only bare min/max constraints, and the description supplies no meaning for them — no default limit, no indication whether pagination is required for full results. With low coverage the description should compensate and it does not.

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?

Names the resource (CSV import jobs), scopes it to the caller, and hints at the return payload ('with counts'). However it lacks an explicit verb and does nothing to distinguish it from the very similar siblings get_post_csv_import, get_post_csv_import_rows, and create_post_csv_import.

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 at all on when to call this versus get_post_csv_import (single import) or get_post_csv_import_rows (row-level data). The agent must infer from names alone which listing tool to use.

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