export_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation that is not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is written to a file, which explains why readOnlyHint=false, but it does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how large graphs are handled. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead, followed by the format enumeration. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for a tool that writes files to disk, key operational details such as overwrite behavior and whether 'pfad' is a file or directory per format are missing.

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%, so both parameters, defaults and the enum semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the format options without adding syntax, path conventions or format-specific behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Graph exportieren') and enumerates the four output formats, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as search_knowledge or knowledge_stats, but no sibling overlaps with exporting, so confusion risk is low.

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 no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats. The format list only hints at possible use cases; there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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