export_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds context that the output is written to a file and clarifies the section path format, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as file overwrite behavior or required permissions.

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 sentence with a concise note containing examples. It is front-loaded and every part adds value, with no unrelated details or fluff.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the key 'section' parameter format, but omits explanations for 'device', 'compact', 'hide_sensitive', and 'name' which are important for multi-device or output-format control. Annotations and output schema reduce the burden, but missing parameter documentation leaves it only moderately 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?

The description only explains the 'section' parameter with a path format and examples, while the remaining four parameters (name, device, compact, hide_sensitive) are undocumented in both the schema and description. With 0% schema coverage and only 1 of 5 parameters explained, this is a significant gap.

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 ('Exports') and clearly identifies the resource as a 'RouterOS configuration section' with a destination ('to a file'). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_dns_config or create_export by emphasizing the 'specific section' scope.

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 implies this tool is for exporting a specific configuration section (e.g., 'ip address') rather than whole configs or other resource types. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like export_dns_config or create_export, nor does it mention exclusions or use cases.

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