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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the heuristic nature, which is good transparency, but it does not explain how duplicates are flagged, whether it has side effects, or any limitations on input size or complexity. The note adds value but is not comprehensive.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat is provided as a separate note. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks important context: it does not describe the output format (how imports are listed, how duplicates are indicated), potential constraints (e.g., file size limits), or behavior on edge cases (e.g., syntax errors). With no output schema, the description should cover these aspects.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it does not describe the 'text' parameter (the source code) nor the 'language' parameter beyond what the enum suggests. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema itself.

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 lists imports from Python/JavaScript source and flags duplicates. This is a specific verb-resource combination, and there are no sibling tools that perform import analysis, so it is sufficiently distinguished.

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 provides clear context about when to use the tool by noting it is a best-effort heuristic and not a full language parser. This implicitly warns against relying on it for precise parsing, but it does not explicitly list when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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