aap_export_workflow

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds that the output is a string in YAML/JSON format and that it is Configuration-as-Code compatible, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 docstring is compact, structured with Args and Returns, and contains no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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 read-only export tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites, but with readOnly annotations and an output schema, this is sufficient. Sibling export tools have similar level of info.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by defining workflow_id as 'Workflow template ID' and format as either 'yaml' or 'json', clarifying the string format and default behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a workflow template as Configuration-as-Code YAML.' This clearly differentiates from sibling export tools (e.g., export_project, export_job_template) by naming the resource type and output format.

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 workflow template exports and specifies the output is compatible with infra.aap_configuration.controller_workflows. It does not explicitly describe when to choose this over export_all_resources or sibling export tools, but the resource-specific purpose is clear.

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