backup_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that the write target is the MCP host filesystem, that overwrite defaults to false (so an existing file causes failure unless opted in), and that the parent directory must already exist. It omits permission/API-scope requirements and failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by compact parameter and return lists — easy to scan. The parameter section largely duplicates a schema that is already fully documented, so a small amount of text doesn't earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (saved path, size, line count). For a tool with a host-side write side effect and no annotations, the main remaining gap is error/partial-failure behavior and whether the device config is fetched over the already-configured credentials.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the global-vs-vdom dichotomy in the scope parameter, tying vdom to that choice, and adding the parent-directory constraint on output_path. Most other parameter text is a restatement of the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (download/save) and resource (running configuration) plus the destination (a file on the MCP server host), which is the detail an agent most needs. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, which are read/list/monitor tools that never touch the host filesystem.

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?

Implied usage is clear (produce a configuration backup file), and the 'parent directory must exist' note hints at a prerequisite, but it never states when to use this versus surfacing config via cmdb_get/get_system_global, nor any connectivity or permission preconditions. No exclusions are given.

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