gograph_imports

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the MCP server checks freshness before the call, refreshes in the current analysis mode, and precise/precise_fallback graphs retry CHA/SSA after source changes. It also states 'Read-only; no side effects' and describes empty return semantics, going well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences are logically grouped into behavior, read-only status, and clearly labeled WHEN/NOT TO USE/RETURNS sections. Every sentence earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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?

Given one parameter with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values ('File paths and package names of all importers; empty when the package is imported nowhere'). It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return semantics comprehensively for the tool's complexity.

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% with the parameter already described as 'The exact import path'. The description reinforces 'exact' but doesn't add new format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. The short-name contrast in NOT TO USE is a usage guideline, not parameter semantics, so the description adds marginal value here.

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 opens with 'Find all files and packages in the codebase that import a specific package by its exact import path' – a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('files and packages that import a package'). The NOT TO USE section further distinguishes it from sibling tools like gograph_deps and gograph_dependents.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE (isolating third-party library usage, tracing internal package consumption) and NOT TO USE with named alternatives (gograph_deps for outgoing imports, gograph_dependents for reverse lookup by short name). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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