list_exports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — that properties are not fully materialized, making this a cheap enumeration — and "List" implies read-only. However, it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or error behavior for a missing asset path.

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 with no filler; the scope and the lightweight-read caveat both appear immediately. It is efficient, though the trailing clause is slightly compressed.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool this is close to sufficient, but it never explains what an "export" is in this domain or what the listing returns, leaving an agent to guess the result structure relative to sibling tools like list_assets and read_asset_export.

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%, but the schema text is only the bare label "Asset path", adding no format or resolution semantics. The description's "in a package" gives mild context that the path targets a package, but it does not clarify accepted path forms. Baseline 3 for full coverage 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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("exports in a package") and hints at the differentiator from read_asset_export by noting it avoids reading full properties. The only wobble is calling the target a "package" while the parameter is named asset_path, but the intent is still unambiguous.

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 "without reading full properties" implies this is the lightweight alternative to a full export read, which is useful routing context, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named sibling alternative is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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