export_terraform

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

Given the annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful context: the API key requirement, the exclusion of secrets (output references Terraform variables), and the import-block behavior that ensures adoption rather than recreation. These are genuinely 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 description is three sentences and each one contributes a distinct fact: the authentication requirement, the export scope/format/import behavior, and the secrets handling. It is concise and without filler, though the auth requirement could arguably follow the main purpose for better front-loading.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main operational points: the source resources, the output form (Terraform HCL), import blocks for adoption, the authentication boundary, and the secrets gap. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but given the absence of an output schema, this gap is acceptable.

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 covers all three optional parameters with 100% description coverage, so the tool description doesn't need to re-explain them. The description mentions the resource categories ('monitors, destinations...') but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the existing schema entries.

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 action ('Export') and distinct resources ('monitors, destinations, routes, alert templates and status pages') with a concrete output format ('Terraform HCL'). It further distinguishes itself from mere read/list tools by noting 'import blocks so they are adopted rather than recreated'.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires an API key with the read scope or higher') and signals its purpose of generating adoptable Terraform. It doesn't explicitly name alternative commands like list_monitors or get_terraform, but the sibling tools are visibly separate (create/update/list), so no exclusions are necessary.

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