export_json

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits of this file-writing operation. It only states the action and destination, but omits critical side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether the directory is auto-created, any permission requirements, or what the tool returns after saving. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb, object, and destination. Every word contributes to conveying the essential purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden on the description. It fails to explain the behavior of the optional filename (e.g., default naming, overwrite policy), whether the target directory is created automatically, or the return value/confirmation of the save operation. This incomplete context is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'filename' as optional custom filename and 'visualization' as the mindmap JSON object. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies since it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('visualization JSON') and states the exact destination path (~/.visualize-chat/visualizations/). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool push_to_navigate by emphasizing local file storage, making the purpose unambiguous.

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. It neither mentions the sibling tool nor explains scenarios where local saving is appropriate or inappropriate. The usage context is only implied by the action itself, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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