hcm_export_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful context by emphasizing that only public, non-secret config is exported and that the output is JSON. This clarifies the tool's behavioral boundary without contradicting the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before stating the intended use cases. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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, read-only export tool, the description provides sufficient context: what is exported, its non-secret nature, and typical use cases. While no output schema is present, the simple nature of the operation does not demand extensive additional detail.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema leaves nothing undocumented, and the description need not elaborate on parameter meaning. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than fabricating parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a concrete resource ('public (non-secret) config JSON'), and an intended purpose ('multi-env profiles / backup'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hcm_emit_mcp_config, which likely generates rather than exports configuration.

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 communicates the appropriate context: exporting non-secret configuration for multi-environment profiles or backup purposes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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