export_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is a self-contained HTML file and can be opened in any browser, implying it is a read operation. However, it lacks details about side effects (e.g., no changes to memory), required permissions, or limitations (e.g., file size).

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 highly concise with three concise sentences: purpose, detail, and usage hint. No unnecessary words, perfectly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage but omits return value details (e.g., what the tool returns—likely a file path or content). It also doesn't explain what 'scope' filters or any limitations, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what 'scope' refers to or how 'maxNodes' affects the graph. The schema descriptions are adequate on their own.

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's purpose: exporting memories as an interactive HTML knowledge graph. It specifies the verb (export), resource (memories), and output format (self-contained HTML file with force-directed visualization), distinguishing it from siblings like 'export_memory'.

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 clear usage context: 'Use when the user wants to visualize their memory network.' This helps in deciding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.

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