terraform_generate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the key behavioral context that the tool generates Terraform HCL using a specific provider, and that it supports a specific set of resource types. It does not disclose details like whether the export includes nested resources, whether it requires existing provider configuration, or what the output format looks like beyond 'HCL configuration'. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action, target, and output format; the second sentence enumerates supported resource types. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only, idempotent export tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It states the output format, provider, and supported resource types. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value shape (e.g., whether it returns the HCL string directly or a file reference), but with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate. A 4 is warranted because the description could have added a note about the output format details, but it is not a significant gap.

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 both parameters (resource_id and resource_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the list of supported resource_type values, which overlaps with the schema's enum-like list but is slightly shorter (the schema includes collector_group, dashboard_group, website_group, which the description omits). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for resource_id. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description's resource-type list is partially redundant with 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('existing LogicMonitor resource'), and the output format ('Terraform HCL configuration using the logicmonitor/logicmonitor provider'). It also enumerates the supported resource types, which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_datasource, export_dashboard, export_alert_rule, etc. The description clearly identifies what this tool does and how it differs from the more specific export_* 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 when to use this tool: when you need to export a LogicMonitor resource as Terraform HCL, and it lists the supported resource types. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use export_datasource for a single datasource export), but the supported-type list and the provider-specific wording give clear context. The sibling list contains many export_* tools, so an explicit exclusion would have been stronger, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for Terraform-generation use cases.

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