list_exports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'without exposing state-directory paths' is a genuine behavioral disclosure about the output's content. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, or any other side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple list tool.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('List persistent export records') and appends a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy 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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies what is being listed and includes an important privacy-related behavior. The output schema presumably documents return fields, so no further description is required here.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description adds no param-specific info, but none is needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persistent export records'), which distinguishes this tool from the many export-creation tools (e.g., 'export_fabrication_outputs', 'export_bom'). The added caveat 'without exposing state-directory paths' further specifies the tool's scope and behavior, making its purpose 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 description implies usage for retrieving previously created export records, which is evident from the verb 'List'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_transactions' or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not fully explicit, so it meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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