analyze_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. It discloses the nature of the analysis (read-only inspection of a dependency graph) and names the kinds of results to expect, which helps the agent understand it won't modify code. However, it doesn't mention potential performance concerns with large projects, whether it traverses nested directories automatically, or what happens if the path is invalid.

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?

Two sentences total: one states what it does, and one states a use case. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and general outputs. The gap is that it doesn't clarify whether this is a pure read operation (no annotations available) or describe how the returned metrics are formatted, so an agent must infer behavior from the output names.

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 the path parameter. The description adds the context that this is the project root directory to analyze, which is slightly useful, but it doesn't elaborate on format (e.g., absolute vs relative) or whether the tool creates any artifacts.

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 identifies the tool's function as analyzing a Python import dependency graph and lists the specific outputs it returns (module metrics, circular dependencies, orphan modules, hub modules, instability scores), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_complexity or find_dead_code.

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 says 'Use to understand project architecture,' which provides a general context but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_import_health or audit_dependencies. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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