exports_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scoping context about which model references are accepted, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or ordering. This is acceptable given the low-risk read-only nature, but no meaningful behavioral depth is added beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence captures the operation, resource, and supported identifier formats with no filler. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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 simple, read-only list operation with two parameters and good schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return contents or pagination, and the lack of guidance relative to export_status leaves a meaningful context gap for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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%, and both the schema and the description explain the same model reference formats and the project requirement for slugs. The description restates rather than extends the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding new semantic value.

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 ('List') and resource ('export jobs for a model'), and names the valid reference forms (owner/project/model, ul:// URI, or slug with project). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling export_status, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

The description explains what can be listed and the required reference forms, but gives no guidance about when to use this instead of export_status, export_create, or export_cancel. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer the boundary between listings and status checks.

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