list_data_export_tables

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and for a zero-parameter read-only listing it discharges that burden well: it discloses the returned content and adds a real operational constraint (backend v0.4.0+ required). It does not discuss whether the table catalogue is static or environment-dependent, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact bullet list mapping each scope to its required IDs and table names. Every line carries distinct information; there is no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it covers purpose, return content, scope semantics, and version requirements. The precise shape of the returned table entries (field names, ordering) is only sketched, but that is a minor gap for a zero-parameter catalogue tool.

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?

This tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by documenting the scope semantics that drive the parameters of the downstream export tools (none/project/look/cueList/lookBoard and the IDs each requires), which is genuinely useful context even though it does not describe this tool's own inputs.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List the data tables that can be exported as CSV or Excel') and states exactly what each entry contains (column headers and scope). It also cross-references the sibling export_data_table, making the division of labour between the two tools obvious without opening either schema.

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 scope-to-ID mapping effectively tells the agent when this tool is needed: it is the discovery step that supplies the projectId/scopeId that export_data_table and export_data_workbook require. Usage is strongly implied but never stated outright as 'call this before exporting', so it falls short of an explicit when-to-use rule.

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