config_export_to_env

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 does not state whether the export is read-only, whether it writes a file or outputs content, or if any configuration is altered. The tool could have side effects (e.g., creating a .env file), but this is not communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but slightly under-specified; a bit more detail would improve clarity without harming conciseness. Still, it is far from tautological or overly verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values or output behavior. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., .env content as a string) or whether it writes to a file. For a simple tool, this missing context leaves the agent guessing.

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% since the only parameter, profileName, has a descriptive explanation. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, but the schema already adequately documents the parameter, 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 clearly states the action ('Export'), the resource ('current configuration'), and the output format ('.env'). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling configuration tools like config_get_status or config_switch_profile, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an active profile or a target environment, nor does it note scenarios where another config tool would be preferable. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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