exports_in

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that results include signatures and lines and are complete from the import graph, but it does not state read-only behavior, permissions, or output structure in detail.

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 short and front-loads the directory export query before the unused-export filter. The second fragment is efficient, though the question-plus-fragment style is slightly less crisp than a direct statement.

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?

For a read-style query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core result components: signatures, lines, and completeness from the import graph. It still omits details about output shape and the absolute_paths option.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies dir and the unused flag, but says nothing about the absolute_paths parameter, leaving that behavior partly undocumented.

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 states a specific query over a directory's exports and specifically mentions unused exports, so the resource and verb are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as who_imports, which is the closest inverse operation.

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?

Usage is only implied: pass a directory to see its exports, and set unused: true to see unused ones. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like who_imports or find_symbol.

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