Export system properties filtered by query or category into a JSON object, enabling environment snapshots for comparison and audit.
Export system properties matching a query to a JSON object (useful for environment snapshots)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Encoded query filter | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the output format (JSON object) and the notion of 'matching a query,' but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like pagination, limits, or whether the JSON is wrapped in a response envelope. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich context.
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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, states the output format, and adds a purposeful hint about snapshots. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, read-only annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, the output form, and a practical use case. It does not detail the query encoding, but the schema already labels it as 'Encoded query filter,' so the description need not repeat that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%: both parameters (query, category) have descriptive text. The description's phrase 'matching a query' loosely echoes the query parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 ('Export'), identifies the resource ('system properties'), and specifies the output format ('JSON object'). It also adds a use case ('environment snapshots') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_system_properties, search_system_properties, or get_system_property, which have different output forms or 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?
The description provides a clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for environment snapshots') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as search_system_properties or bulk_get_properties. It implies a use case but leaves the selection reasoning to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.