export_section

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context: output is an export script, secrets can be hidden, and setting hide_sensitive to false appends show-sensitive. This goes beyond the obvious read-only behavior and clarifies a safety-relevant flag.

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 short, front-loaded with the main behavior, and uses a scannable notes list for parameters. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary filler.

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 core required parameter$ {section} is illustrated with realistic examples and leading slash guidance is given. An output schema and annotations cover return values and safety. Compact and device are underdocumented but not required for a basic invocation.

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 description provides strong meaning for section with examples and for hide_sensitive with its effect, which is valuable given 0% schema description coverage. However, compact and device are not explained, so the agent must rely on their names, defaults, and context to invoke them correctly.

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 returns a RouterOS configuration section as an export script, with a specific resource and output format. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like create_export or export_dns_config, but the 'section' scope makes the core 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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_export for a full export or export_dns_config for a specific section. The notes explain parameter semantics but do not help an agent choose this tool over its many export-related siblings.

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