tosea_list_exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately states the tool lists presentations with export history, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention whether the list is ordered, paginated, or if it counts items. The simplicity of zero parameters reduces need, but some additional context (e.g., 'returns presentation IDs') would improve transparency.

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, clear phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While it is concise, it could be structured as a full sentence for consistency, but it is not detrimental.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the basic behavior. However, it does not specify the format of the returned list (e.g., presentation names, IDs) or any ordering. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the output.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter information as there are none. According to guidelines, with 0 params, baseline is 4.

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 presentations that already have export history' clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (presentations), and filter (already have export history). It distinguishes from sibling 'tosea_list_presentations' which lists all presentations, and 'tosea_list_export_files' which lists export files themselves. However, it could explicitly mention the filtering aspect to enhance differentiation.

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 versus alternatives like 'tosea_list_presentations' or 'tosea_list_export_files'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit help.

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