export_curl

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a genuine behavioral trait: '{{variables}} stay as placeholders, so no secret is written out' — an important safety/redaction property an agent would not infer from the schema. It omits what happens when both or neither parameter is supplied.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the safety note is placed last as a supporting detail. Every clause earns 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description sufficiently implies the return value (a curl command string). Annotations cover the safety profile and the redaction behavior is stated, but the 0-required-parameter ambiguity (which mode wins if both/neither supplied) is left unaddressed.

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 is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the two distinct lookup modes (saved request by name vs history entry by id) and cross-referencing get_history for the id source. It does not resolve precedence when both optional params are given or omitted.

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 (turn into) and resource (a saved request or history entry → curl command), and names the two input modes explicitly. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling import_curl, which does the reverse transformation.

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?

Gives a clear context of use: 'for CI scripts or tools that only speak curl', which tells the agent why and when to reach for it. It does not, however, explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the inverse tool (import_curl) as the alternative.

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