export_knowledge_graph

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the output is an HTML artifact, the 'full' view caps papers at 200 by PageRank, and build_index(type='graph') must have been run first. This exceeds the annotation baseline, though it does not detail failure behavior if the prerequisite is missing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to usage context, parameter detail, and the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the output format, supported views, and a prerequisite, which is substantial. Yet the 'path' parameter remains a gap in the documentation, and because the output schema already exists, return-value explanation is not needed. The missing path semantics keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does richly describe the 'view' parameter, including enum values and their graph semantics, but says nothing about the 'path' parameter, which is left undocumented in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation only.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export the knowledge graph as an interactive HTML visualization that opens in any browser.' It also names the exact use cases and view options, making the tool's role unmistakable even without a title.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to see their citation network visually, explore research clusters, or share a graph,' which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., get_citation_graph or query_knowledge_graph) or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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