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 discloses key behaviors: writes to a local file, returns path and size, does not return the config text itself, and is allowed in read-only mode. It omits edge cases like file overwrite behavior or failure handling, but covers the essential behavioral traits well.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by permission context and the rationale for not returning text. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values (path and size) and the key constraint that the config text is not returned. Minor gaps such as overwrite behavior or error cases exist, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond the obvious 'local file' reference, matching the baseline for high schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Back up') and resource ('full running configuration'), and clarifies the output is a local file path and size rather than config text. This clearly distinguishes it from all read/list/delete siblings.

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 usage through its purpose and notes 'Allowed in read-only mode', but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or offer exclusions. No alternative backup tool exists among siblings, so implied usage is sufficient, but explicit guidance is absent.

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