export_remediationsource

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations — output format (REST API) and compatibility with create/update — but doesn't detail what the exported definition includes or whether dependent resources are bundled.

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?

A single two-clause sentence with zero filler; the core action and format are front-loaded, and the reuse hint is a second clause that directly supports tool selection. Nothing could be trimmed.

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 single-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety carried by annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the format, and the purpose of the output. Minor gap is not describing the shape/contents of the returned definition, but the create/update compatibility note largely closes that.

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% (remediationsource_id: 'RemediationSource ID'), so the description doesn't need to document the parameter. It adds only marginal value by implying the ID selects which definition gets exported, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Export') and resource ('RemediationSource definition'), with a format qualifier ('REST API format') that separates it from plain get_remediationsource and from sibling exports like export_datasource or export_configsource. The note that output feeds create/update further pins its identity.

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 the use case — producing a definition for reuse — by stating the output can be used with create_remediationsource or update_remediationsource. This gives clear context (backup/cloning/migration) but stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion versus get_remediationsource.

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