Export Gateway Configuration

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

The description contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint is set to false, yet the tool is described as an export operation, which is inherently read-only. This is a serious inconsistency, and the description doesn't clarify any write side effects. The mention of possible MCP elicitation for secrets adds some context, but the contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 in the first sentence and additional context in the second. Every sentence adds valuable information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (connected and active), the output's intended use (passable to import), and potential confirmation behavior for secrets. With an output schema present and good annotations (aside from the contradiction), this is nearly complete, but the contradiction with readOnlyHint prevents a perfect score.

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 fully documents the single parameter, cluster_id, with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor degrades the baseline.

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 tool exports a gateway cluster's full DB configuration as a DSL document, with a specific verb (export), resource (gateway cluster's DB configuration), and output format (DSL document). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning the counterpart import_gateway_configuration.

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 gives clear context: the gateway must be connected and active, and the resulting document can be used directly in a future import call. It implies when to use this tool (when exporting configuration) and hints at the relationship with import, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.

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