Browse files and folders within an image export to inspect its contents. Use pagination to navigate through items.
Browse the files and folders exposed by an image export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to return per page. Defaults to 10. | |
| offset | No | Starting index for pagination. Defaults to 0. | |
| image_export_id | Yes | Image export ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Browse the files and folders' suggests a read-only listing, but it does not indicate what the response looks like, whether pagination behavior is expected, or any permissions or side effects. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation support.
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 concise sentence that states the core action and resource without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly scopes the operation.
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?
This is a relatively simple browse operation with one required parameter, and the schema is fully documented. However, there is no output schema and no behavioral details about the returned listing, so the description is minimally workable but not fully complete.
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 100%, with all three parameters already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which corresponds to the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and a concrete resource ('files and folders exposed by an image export'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like slide_get_image_export and slide_list_image_exports, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 purpose implies that this tool is for navigating the contents of an image export, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as slide_list_image_exports or slide_get_image_export, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.