export_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the export is read-only or non-modifying, nor does it describe what happens to the session or what the output looks like (e.g., returned string vs. file download). The word 'Export' implies a safe operation, but this is not made explicit, leaving uncertainty.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place—the first sentence states the core function, and the second lists specifics. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, 1 required), the description covers the basic purpose and formats. However, it lacks information about the return value or output format (e.g., whether it returns the RDF content directly or as an attachment), and it does not differentiate from the similar-sounding sibling 'export_session'. Since there is no output schema, the description should have provided this context.

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 schema already documents both 'session_id' and 'format' parameters effectively. The description adds minimal extra value by listing the supported format values, but these are already present in the schema's format description. It does not clarify default behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), identifies the resource ('a session's Knowledge Structure'), and states the destination ('to another format'). It also lists the supported formats ('json-ld', 'turtle', 'rdf-xml'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from generic 'export' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'export_session'.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need to export a session's Knowledge Structure to a supported RDF format. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_session' or 'serialize_knowledge', and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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