kg_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'export,' which implies a non-destructive read. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the graph, handles errors, or has side effects, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices clarity and structure. It is front-loaded but lacks any supplementary details that would improve usability.

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 complexity (many siblings, no annotations, 3 parameters), the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain the tool's role in a workflow, what triggers it, or how it relates to other knowledge graph tools.

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 coverage is 67% (format and output_path have descriptions, graph_path is missing). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it merely restates the tool's purpose. An agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter understanding.

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 'Export the knowledge graph to another format,' which clearly identifies the action (export) and resource (knowledge graph), but it is vague about what 'another format' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like kg_import and kg_render, but lacks specificity about the output formats, which are only detailed in the schema.

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 its many siblings (e.g., kg_import, kg_render, export_diagram). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, making it difficult for an AI agent to select appropriately.

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