export_terraform

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: secrets are not exported, and placeholders become Terraform variables the user must fill in. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 front-load the resource scope and output format, then state the key secrets caveat. Every sentence adds meaningful, non-redundant information.

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 an export tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is exported, the output format, adoption behavior, and the secrets handling. Nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already documents all three optional parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra parameter-level detail, but none is needed given 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?

Description names the exact action and scope: export existing LastPing monitors, destinations, routes, alert templates, and status pages as Terraform HCL. It is clearly distinct from the sibling CRUD and monitoring tools.

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 makes clear this is for exporting existing resources into Terraform and adopting them via import blocks rather than recreating them. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool, but the use case is well implied.

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