Export AIOrouter Config

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding that the output is MCP configuration JSON for specific clients. However, it does not go beyond that to clarify side effects or detailed behavior; the readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, so the description adds moderate value.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an enum and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output type. It does not explain the exact structure of the generated JSON, but the output schema absence is compensated by the clear mention of 'MCP configuration JSON' and the target list.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'target' parameter, including an enum and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('MCP configuration JSON'), and explicitly lists three target clients. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chat, model listing, or connection testing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when generating config for Claude Desktop, Claude Code, or Codex CLI), but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool references. Given the sibling list, the use case is unambiguous, but a bit more direct guidance would make it a 5.

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