list_exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that `__all__` is respected, that non-underscore module-level names are reported otherwise, and that re-exported imports are flagged. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable behavioral detail, and the Args section is minimal yet useful. No wasted words.

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 tool with one input parameter and an output schema available, the description provides the essential behavioral contract. It covers how exports are computed and flagged, so an agent can confidently select and invoke the tool without further clarification.

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 schema's `path` parameter has only a title, but the description's Args section clarifies it expects 'Path to a .py file'. This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by giving the parameter concrete meaning.

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 opens with 'List the public symbols of a module', a specific verb and resource. It adds concrete details about `__all__` handling and fallback behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_declarations and list_imports.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and first sentence, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions no exclusions or sibling comparisons, so the usage context is present but not explicit.

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