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 only states listing behavior and does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, mention permissions, error behavior, or any limitations. The verb 'lists' suggests non-mutating, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word earns its place, and it does not restate the tool name or repeat schema information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what is listed and the kinds of symbols. It does not detail the return format, but this is largely inferable and the description mentions the key output aspects. Slightly more detail could improve it, but it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'path' parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the TS/JS file'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all exported symbols') and enumerates the kinds (function, class, interface, type, variable, re-export), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_declarations and list_functions. The scope is unequivocal.

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 by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives such as list_declarations or list_functions. There is no exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling set.

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