export_backup_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must supply behavioral details. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely true but not stated), what permissions are needed, or if any side effects exist (e.g., does it create files?). The only behavioral info is that it returns a JSON string, but no further context on safety or state changes.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating purpose plus a one-line Args section. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, output format, and parameter. However, it lacks mention of read-only nature or any prerequisites (e.g., backup must exist). For a tool with no annotations, these omissions keep it from being fully 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 schema provides only a parameter named 'backup_id' with type string and no description. The description adds significant meaning by clarifying that it expects a 'Numeric ID of the backup job to export.' This corrects the schema type (string to numeric) and explains the parameter's purpose, fully compensating for zero schema description coverage.

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 backup job configuration as a JSON string. The verb 'export' and resource 'backup job configuration' are specific, and the output format is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_backup (which likely returns full backup details) and import_backup_config (imports rather than exports).

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. For example, it does not explain when to use export_backup_config instead of get_backup or db_get_backup_*. The description lacks context on when to choose this tool over others in a workflow.

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