export_vng_yaml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'Export' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The parameter examples (vng_id format, account_id default, cloud options) add some context but fall short of full transparency.

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 extremely concise: one introductory sentence and three parameter lines using clear markdown-style 'Args'. Every part is informative with no fluff.

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 (export of YAML), the description covers purpose, parameter details, and use cases. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need no explanation. It lacks any mention of errors or prerequisites, but for a read-only export this is acceptable.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: vng_id with concrete examples for both cloud providers, account_id with default behavior, and cloud with allowed values and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default info.

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 a VNG configuration as YAML') and explicit use cases ('GitOps comparison or backup'). This verb-resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like export_cluster_yaml.

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 context with 'Useful for GitOps comparison or backup' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough given sibling differentiation.

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