export_map

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully discloses that the output is an HTML artifact and that the return value is a path, but it omits where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, and any size/time cost. The 'Write' verb sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, though for an export tool the write is artifact generation rather than mutation of the source snapshot.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and artifact, and ending with the return value. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces (an offline interactive HTML map) and what it returns (the path), which is the essential information. Minor gaps remain around the write location and overwrite behavior, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required beyond the 'current snapshot' context.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Write') and a concrete artifact ('the interactive offline neurosystem HTML map of the current snapshot'), which clearly separates it from the query-oriented siblings like get_node or infra_summary. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the deliverable is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a shareable/offline visualization of the snapshot. There is no statement of when to prefer it over the sibling query tools and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the snapshot must exist or be current).

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