conn_export

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses that passwords are masked by default and that include_secrets=true will unmask them, which is a key behavioral aspect. However, it does not mention the response format or any side effects, but for a simple export tool, this is adequate.

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 only two sentences, direct and efficiently worded, with no unnecessary verbiage. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the critical secret-handling detail.

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 of the tool (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (exports to JSON) and the key behavioral option (masking). It does not elaborate on the return structure, but that may not be necessary here. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and usage.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (name and include_secrets), and the description adds minimal extra context, such as the JSON export format and the default masking behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description aligns with the schema without contradicting it.

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 'Exporta conexiones a JSON' (exports connections to JSON), specifying the verb 'export', the resource 'connections', and the output format 'JSON'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like conn_list or conn_get, which are likely for reading or retrieving data, whereas this tool specifically exports to JSON.

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 practical guidance on the default masking behavior and how to include secrets via include_secrets=true. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but it establishes clear context for when to use this export tool, especially regarding secrets handling. It could be improved by noting when to prefer this over conn_list, but it's acceptable.

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