Export the current workspace configuration as YAML, including rules, project templates, and settings. Use it to back up or transfer your EVC Mesh workspace setup.
Export the current workspace configuration as YAML, including rules, project templates, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing exactly what is captured - rules, project templates, and settings - which tells the agent the blast radius and contents of the export.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; verb, format, and content scope all appear before any trailing clause. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or title.
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?
For a zero-param read-only export with rich annotations, the description covers format and content scope well. The one unresolved question is whether the YAML is returned inline or written somewhere, though with no output schema that omission is minor.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the 0-param baseline a 4 is appropriate. The description does not invent parameters or imply filtering options that do not exist.
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?
States a specific verb (export) and resource (workspace configuration) plus the output format (YAML) and the contents (rules, project templates, settings). The inverse sibling import_workspace_config makes the direction unambiguous, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb - an agent can infer this is for capturing config but there is no statement of when to call it (e.g., before migrations/backups), no exclusions, and no named alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.