ecp_postgres_export_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It clearly states the dump is returned as text and can be large, which indicates output size behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether this operation is destructive, whether it locks the database, or what PostgreSQL dump format details apply. With no annotations at all, the description carries the full safety burden and only partially covers it.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a practical warning about result size. Concise and scannable, though it lacks a usage-eligibility clause or return-format note (already partially covered).

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 export tool, the description covers the operation, the output type, and the key caveat (large result). It doesn't explain result format details like escaping or delimiters, but for this simple schema with one param, it is reasonably complete. The sibling alternative is named.

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 coverage is 0% – the single required parameter db_name has no description. The tool description never mentions what db_name means or expects (name of a database on the server). The agent must infer the parameter's meaning from the tool name alone, which is a real gap.

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 ('Export'), resource ('Postgres database'), and format ('.sql dump'). Names the sibling it is not (ecp_postgres_backup_to_storage_bd), distinguishing this quick-look dump tool from the backup variant. Scope is explicit: export a database as a SQL dump, which is unambiguous against the extensive sibling list.

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?

Explicitly recommends ecp_postgres_backup_to_storage_bd as an alternative for anything beyond a quick look, saying the result is returned as text and is large. This is the clearest possible when/when-not guidance.

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