list_exports

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return fields (expression, pattern, path, timestamp, staleness indicator) and optional filtering, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, or any potential side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise at 4 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. However, it includes a markdown argument list that duplicates schema information, which is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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 the tool's low complexity and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields. However, it omits details on pagination, error handling, and safe vs. side-effect behavior, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim for both 'glob' and 'options' parameters, adding no new meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 states 'List all tracked content exports with metadata,' specifying the verb and resource. Given sibling tools like list_projects and list_resources, it effectively distinguishes itself as an export-specific listing tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional glob filtering but lacks context on use cases or when not to use it, relying solely on the implied purpose of listing exports.

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