export_org_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 explicitly states 'read-only', 'Secrets are excluded/masked', and output as JSON. This conveys non-destructiveness and security handling. It does not cover error behavior or org_id omission consequences, but for an export tool this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: the first covers scope and format, the second covers secret handling. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple export tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description explains output format, included scope, and security behavior. It could mention the effect of omitting org_id (e.g., using active org), but overall it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional param org_id, including its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 and resource: 'Export a read-only backup of the org configuration as JSON'. It enumerates included items (sites, networks, VPNs, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_* reports and diff_org_config by clearly stating its backup/export nature.

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 phrase 'read-only backup' and 'for the user to save to a .json file' clearly indicate the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives (e.g., diff_org_config for comparisons). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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