GetImports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the empty-module default, the exact entry shape, the QuerySymbols('Import*') fallback, and that it works on any PE in the debugger. Only pagination behavior is left undisclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and default behavior, then the return shape, then the fallback. Every sentence carries information, though the fallback sentence is somewhat implementation-detail-heavy for a selection-time description.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the entry fields ({module, function, iatVa, thunkVa}) and the fallback source, which is what an agent needs to trust the result. The unaddressed limit/offset pagination is the only material gap for a read-only tool whose annotations are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains `module` (empty → current debuggee's main module) but says nothing about `limit` or `offset`, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the import table') plus its scope ('for a loaded module'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling GetExports (exports table) and DumpModule. The default-module behavior is stated immediately, so the agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 gives the implicit trigger condition ('for a loaded module'; empty module means main module) and a fallback path, but never says when to prefer this over GetExports, DumpModule, or SearchStrings. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than explicitly guided.

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