get_table_exporters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists exporters and returns IDs, which is straightforward, but it does not explicitly declare it as a read-only operation or mention permissions or side effects. The name 'get' implies read-only, but explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and return value usage. It could mention the return format explicitly, but the lack of output schema reduces the need. Overall, complete enough for effective selection and 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?

The input schema covers the only parameter with a description ('The UUID of the table'). The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all exporters on a specific table and returns exporter IDs. The verb 'list' and resource 'exporters configured on a table' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_table_exporter' or 'run_table_exporter'.

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 implies a usage scenario by mentioning that returned IDs can be used with 'run_table_exporter', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'search_exporters'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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