aap_export_job_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying the return type (str of YAML) and its compatibility with a specific collection, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention potential permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only export tool this is not a major omission.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, using Args/Returns format. The key purpose (export job template as YAML) is front-loaded, and every line adds useful information without redundancy. It fits the information in a compact, readable form.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema and annotations provide enough context to invoke it correctly. The return type is specified, and the compatibility note helps set expectations. The lack of explicit usage guidance prevents a 5, but overall the information is adequate for this tool's complexity.

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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters (template_id and format) with their expected types and values, which aligns with the schema. It adds a bit of context by indicating the format choices ('yaml' or 'json') and the return compatibility. However, it does not mention the default value of format, which is present in the schema. The parameter coverage in the description is good, though not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the action (export), the resource (job template), and the output format (Configuration-as-Code YAML). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aap_get_job_template by focusing on export-to-code, and from other export tools by targeting job templates specifically.

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 for Infrastructure-as-Code workflows via the 'Configuration-as-Code' phrase and compatibility with infra.aap_configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like aap_export_all_resources or aap_get_job_template. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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