slide_list_image_exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a valuable and non-obvious security behavior: the live Samba password is never returned even if the underlying API includes it. The 'list' verb implies a read-only operation, and the redaction warning provides useful transparency that the schema alone could not convey.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and defines the resource, and the second provides a crucial security caveat. Both sentences earn their place and the description is tightly structured and easily parsed.

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 that the schema fully documents all six parametersating, the description covers the core concept, the filtering capability, and the one non-obvious response behavior. It does not describe the overall response shape, but for a list operation this is a minor gap and the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of filtering by creation date echoes the created_after/created_before parameters but adds no new semantic detail or format guidance. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 identifies the operation as 'List image exports' and defines what an image export is in the parenthetical, giving the agent a precise resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this listing tool from its siblings (get_image_export, browse_image_export), so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'filterable by creation date' implies a use case and gives some context for when this tool would be appropriate. But it does not name any sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get_image_export or browse_image_export, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or conditional guidance.

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