export_graph_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool writes to a default path, that rendering loads vis-network from a CDN (network dependency), and that nodes are colored/filterable. It does not mention overwrite behavior, directory creation, or what happens if the graph is empty, which are notable gaps for a side-effecting export tool. It adds value but is not fully transparent.

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 efficiently organized: one sentence for the core purpose, followed by a focused paragraph on visual features and important defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler. Minor redundancy exists ('standalone interactive HTML page' vs. details about interactive features), but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers key details like output location and CDN dependency. However, it omits whether the tool requires a pre-existing knowledge graph or if it builds one implicitly, and it does not address common concerns like file overwriting or error conditions. These gaps mean it is not fully complete for safe agent invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that project_root determines the default output path and that output_path defaults to null (meaning use the default). However, it does not clarify what project_root should point to, the accepted format, or the effect of providing an explicit output_path. The meaning added is useful but incomplete.

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 ('Export'), resource ('knowledge graph'), and output format ('standalone interactive HTML page'). It also mentions interactive features like search, filters, and details panel, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_knowledge_graph or graph_report. An agent can accurately select this tool when an exportable HTML visualization is needed.

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 creating a browser-viewable HTML file, and it gives practical details (default path, CDN requirement). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions like whether the knowledge graph must already be built. The guidance is reasonable but not explicit enough to warrant a higher score.

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