get_exports

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns static data or interprets the current analysis state, or any side effects. As a read-only tool, it lacks confirmation of non-destructiveness.

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 a single sentence of five words, perfectly concise with no waste. All essential information is front-loaded.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a simple list operation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the output schema could be leveraged to describe return format. The description doesn't mention whether exports are sorted or filtered, which could be useful context.

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 zero parameters. The description adds no extra parameter info, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. No additional explanation is needed.

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 'List all exported functions/symbols' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'exported functions/symbols'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_functions' (which likely lists all functions) and 'get_imports', but it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_imports' or clarify scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'list_functions' or 'get_imports'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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