export_dns_config

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description doesn't mention what file format is used, where the file is saved, whether it overwrites existing files, or how the file can be retrieved. It essentially repeats the tool's name without elaborating on side effects or operational details.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key action. However, it sacrifices too much substance for brevity, so it isn't a perfect score.

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 that this tool exports to a file and has sibling tools like download_file and export_section, the description lacks essential context about the export workflow, file handling, and relationship to other operations. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to cover the tool's role in the broader file export/transfer process.

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 has two parameters (device and filename) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving their meaning and usage entirely ambiguous. For example, it is unclear whether 'filename' refers to the output file path or an input configuration file, and what 'device' specifies. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 (exports), the resource (DNS configuration), and the target (to a file). This specific verb+resource+target structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_section or export_user_config, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_section, create_export, or download_file. The description simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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