export_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Export') and specifies the output structure (node-link format), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose error conditions (e.g., missing graph), return type details (string vs. object), or whether the operation is synchronous. Basic transparency is present, but edge cases are unaddressed.

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 a single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information. It is efficiently concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and output format, but lacks essential context: how the parameter is used, the exact JSON structure beyond 'node-link', and any usage conditions. Given the large sibling set, additional guidance on when to choose this export tool would improve completeness. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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. The single parameter 'graph' is vaguely clarified by the phrase 'Export graph', indicating it is the graph to be exported. However, the description does not specify whether this is an ID, name, or object, nor the expected format. The parameter's purpose is inferable but not explicitly defined.

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 the action ('Export'), the object ('graph'), and the output format ('JSON in node-link format'). This differentiates it from siblings like export_bibtex, which exports a different format. The verb-object-format structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing graph, nor does it note that this is the tool for programmatic interchange of graph data. No exclusions or alternative tool references are present.

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