Export Graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool requires prior calls to scan or load, and it supports three named formats. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., does exporting modify the resource graph?), error conditions, or performance implications. That said, the lack of annotations means the description does not contradict any, so annotation_contradiction is false. A slight deduction for missing mutation details, but still strong.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: first states the core action, second gives a critical prerequisite, third lists formats with specific tools. No filler, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and expected outcomes (files). However, it lacks details about return values (e.g., success message, file path returned) and error handling. Still, for a focused export tool, this is adequate and surpasses a minimum viable score.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline expectations. The description adds value by clarifying the default output file paths for each format ('Defaults to graph.gexf, graph.json, or report.md'), which is not in the schema's parameter descriptions. The format enum is also repeated in the description with context (e.g., 'json for sigma.js viewer'), reinforcing meaning. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 states 'Export the resource graph to a file' with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('resource graph'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by listing supported formats (gexf, json, md), which other sibling tools like scan, load, detect, or dump do not handle. This makes the purpose unambiguous and sets it apart.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires scan or load to be called first.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly tells the agent not to use this tool before those steps. It also lists supported formats, helping the agent choose based on desired output. No alternatives are needed as the purpose is singular.

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