export_server_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the output format (TOML) and that sensitive information (paths) is excluded, which gives the agent insight into the response content and privacy handling. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is non-destructive or any authentication prerequisites, though the verb 'export' implies read-only behavior.

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 two short sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and purpose, the second details the output format and exclusion policy. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core aspects: purpose, output format, and data exclusion. However, it does not specify whether the output is a string or a file, nor any prerequisites like prior setup, which are minor gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema leaves no ambiguity. The description adds context about the output format and exclusion of paths, which is more relevant than parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 verb 'Export' and resource 'server configuration,' and specifies the purpose 'for team sharing.' It also differentiates from siblings like import_server_config by mentioning the TOML format and exclusion of sensitive paths, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for team sharing') and implies a complementary relationship with import_server_config, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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