suggest_imports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool searches project sources, JDK, and libraries, and sorts results by relevance with explicit ranking (e.g., java.util higher than java.awt). It also describes the output format, which is adequate for a read-only query tool.

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 extremely concise, with a clear structure: purpose, usage example, output summary, and behavior details. Every sentence adds value without 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, search scope, sorting behavior, and output format. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but for a simple suggestion tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds a usage example for the required typeName parameter but does not provide additional semantics for maxResults (e.g., default value is in schema only). Thus, no significant value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find import candidates for unresolved type' and provides a usage example. It explains what sources are searched (project, JDK, libraries), which differentiates it from generic search tools, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_symbols or organize_imports.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and a usage example, which provides context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_quick_fixes or search_symbols, leaving the agent to infer the best use case.

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