export_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool 'creates a self-contained HTML file with a force-directed visualization' and that the file can be 'opened in any browser.' This transparently conveys that the tool produces a file artifact without modifying memory. While it doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, the export nature implies non-destructiveness, which is adequate.

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, each contributing essential information: what it does, what it produces, and when to use it. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is 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?

The description is complete for a simple export tool with two optional parameters. It covers the output format, usability in a browser, and the intended use case. It doesn't mention how the file is delivered (e.g., file path) or how scope/maxNodes affect the result, but these are covered by the schema and the tool's simple nature, so it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with both parameters (scope and maxNodes) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the graph output, so it does not exceed the baseline. The schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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 function: 'Export memories as an interactive HTML knowledge graph.' It specifies the verb (export), resource (memories), and output format (interactive HTML graph), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_memory. The added use case 'Use when the user wants to visualize their memory network' further clarifies its purpose.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use when the user wants to visualize their memory network.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as export_memory, so it falls short of a 5.

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