Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: support for multiple formats, optional brotli compression with auto-enablement for >100KB, and streaming for large graphs (≥5000 entities). However, it does not cover aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Export knowledge graph') and succinctly lists key features (formats, brotli compression, streaming). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main functionality and key behavioral aspects like compression and streaming. However, it could improve by addressing output details or error scenarios, but it's adequate for a tool with rich schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'various formats' and 'streaming for large graphs', but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Export knowledge graph') and resource ('knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'import_graph' or 'read_graph'. It specifies the purpose is to export in various formats with optional features, making the tool's function 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?

The description implies usage for exporting graphs, particularly large ones, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_graph' or 'import_graph'. It mentions streaming for large graphs, which provides some context, but lacks clear exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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