export_backup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is written (all captures fields, tags, entities, connections), the format (versioned JSONL, ksj-export-v1), and the existence of a documented format and an import path, but it doesn't mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or whether writing is atomic.

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?

Three well-organized sentences plus an Args block. Front-loaded with the core action and format. It's slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the docs pointer, but every sentence adds useful context.

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?

For a single-parameter export tool with an output schema, the description covers the use case, scope, format, import coupling, and parameter default. The output schema handles return value details, so the only remaining gap is operational nuance like overwrite behavior.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining file_path's purpose and default, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Write the entire knowledge base to a versioned JSONL file'), names the format (ksj-export-v1), and distinguishes itself from siblings like export_captures and export_html by emphasizing it's a full backup with an import path.

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?

Explicitly says it's 'a real backup with a matching import path, not a one-way dump,' contrasting it with export_html and export_captures but without explicitly naming those siblings or detailing when a user should choose export_backup over them.

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