rundeck_export_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the export action but does not disclose if it is read-only, required permissions, or what the response format looks like. However, for a non-destructive export, it is minimally adequate.

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?

One sentence, 10 words, no fluff. Every word is necessary to convey the core purpose.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description is sufficient for a simple export tool. It does not explain return format or filtering behavior, but the schema covers parameter meanings. Lacks completeness in behavioral context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description only adds the format list (JSON, YAML, XML) beyond the schema, which is already an enum. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 (export), resource (job definitions), and scope (from a project, with format options). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rundeck_get_job (single job) and rundeck_list_jobs (list identities).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rundeck_get_job or rundeck_import_jobs. The description implies export for backup/migration but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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