export_dns_config

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, so the safe/non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds only that the output goes 'to a file,' but does not clarify where the file is written, whether it overwrites an existing file, what format is produced, or any side effects beyond the export. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the added behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It could earn a 5 if it also included a bit more operational detail, but as a concise purpose statement it is efficient.

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?

Although the tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description leaves critical context missing: parameter meanings, destination/location of the exported file, and differentiation from other export tools. The agent does not have enough information to reliably invoke the tool correctly across ambiguous device or filename values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It does not clarify what 'device' selects or what 'filename' means, its default behavior when null, or any naming constraints. This is a significant gap because the schema provides only titles and defaults, not semantic meaning.

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 verb and resource: 'Exports DNS configuration to a file.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes the resource type from siblings such as export_logs or export_user_config. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast these sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_section, create_export, or get_dns_settings. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred conditions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the resource name alone.

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