export_knowledge_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only on the database; writes only Markdown,' which discloses the non-destructive nature. It also describes the output format (wikilinks, YAML frontmatter, index). Minor gaps like file naming details are present but acceptable.

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 concise with three sentences plus an args line. It front-loads the purpose, adds key behavioral notes, and doesn't waste words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (exporting a library to Markdown vault), the description explains the output format and read-only nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor omissions like file naming conventions are not critical.

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 description adds an Args section that explains the single parameter 'out_dir' with default and location, going well beyond the schema's minimal type definition. Since schema coverage is 0%, this extra detail is essential and well-provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export the library as a cross-linked Obsidian-style Markdown vault.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like export_citations by specifying the format and linking style.

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 for creating portable, human-readable views of the knowledge graph. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the read-only note provides context. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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