export_markdown_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions side effects (writing files) and output (counts), but lacks details on whether the tool modifies the graph, required permissions, or error conditions. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description is structurally 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return values (written files and graph counts). It covers the essential behavior for a file-export tool, though it could elaborate on the graph counts format or implications of partitioning parameters.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the root_path purpose. No additional clarifications for agent_id, project, or session_id.

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 clearly states the tool exports the current graph as an Obsidian-compatible Markdown vault, specifying the purpose (human browsable notes with graph links) and output (written files and graph counts). This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_graph_html or export_context_bundle.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a human wants browsable note files with graph links,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings like import_markdown_vault or export_graph_backup.

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