edubase_get_exam_journey_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies the export emits a portable JSON graph representation and routes the agent to a skill/reference for working with the format, which is meaningful behavioral context for a read tool with a specialized payload.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the format-handling pointer. Both sentences earn their place and there is no filler, though the second sentence could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the return payload, and it correctly focuses on action and format handling. It is essentially complete for a two-parameter read tool; only the sibling differentiation is thin.

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 the enum and default already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'draft or the published' mirrors the schema's enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is already structured.

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?

States a specific verb (Export), resource (the journey started by an exam), and the output format (portable JSON). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like edubase_get_exam_journey or the write counterpart edubase_put_exam_journey_graph, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives guidance for how to interpret the exported format (use the edubase-exam-journeys skill, or edubase_mcp_reference as fallback), which is useful. However, it offers no when-to-use signal relative to alternatives such as edubase_get_exam_journey or when to choose draft vs published beyond the schema default.

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