api_analyze_imports

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool extracts imports, detects patterns, and enriches, but omits performance implications, file size limits, required permissions, side effects (e.g., whether enrichment modifies state), or output format. The phrase 'optionally enriches' is ambiguous without context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently conveys key capabilities without redundant words.

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?

While the description covers the main functionality, it lacks information on output format, example usage, or prerequisites. Given no output schema and complex analysis, a more complete description would include expected return structure or caveats.

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 adequate parameter descriptions. The description adds little beyond restating schema fields: 'pattern detection' mirrors detect_patterns, 'API enrichment' mirrors enrich_from_db. No additional constraints or format details provided.

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 states the tool performs 'Detailed PE import analysis with pattern detection and API enrichment.' It specifies extracting imports, detecting injection/evasion/persistence patterns with MITRE ATT&CK mapping, and optional API enrichment. This distinguishes it from siblings like api_detect_patterns by focusing on 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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional enrichment but does not state when pattern detection or enrichment is appropriate, nor does it exclude other tools for import analysis. Sibling tools like apmx_detect_patterns or file_analyze_pe exist with no differentiation.

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