aap_export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds some context by specifying the return type ('Returns: str: YAML/JSON suitable for aap_configuration collection playbooks'), but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, permissions, or format limitations. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 highly concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It contains only essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it could have mentioned when to use this export variant instead of aap_export_all_resources or other export tools, which would add a little more context. The core information is all present, so it is nearly complete.

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 top-level schema parameter 'params' has no description (0% coverage), but the description's Args section compensates by listing project_id and format with their types and meanings. While the inner schema already contains these descriptions, the description clarifies the wrapper structure (ExportProjectInput) and makes the parameter purpose explicit, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: 'Export an AAP project as Configuration-as-Code (infra.aap_configuration format).' This uses a specific verb ('Export'), identifies the resource ('AAP project'), and specifies the output format. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aap_get_project (which fetches details) and other export tools for different resources.

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 tool is used when you need to export a project in a configuration-as-code format, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., aap_export_all_resources) or provide exclusions. The 'suitable for aap_configuration collection playbooks' phrase gives context but not direct usage guidance.

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