export_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it renders the 'current OKF graph', which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as default limits (available in schema) or output size implications. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the accepted formats. There is zero filler; every word earns its place. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 that the tool is a read-only export with well-documented parameters in the schema, the description is fairly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention that the output is plain text/string, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The 'current OKF graph' phrasing clarifies scope, and the format enum covers the output variants.

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 every parameter (format, maxEdges, maxNodes, edgeKinds, includeAssets, includeExternal) is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 'Render the current OKF graph' followed by the three output formats (JSON, Graphviz DOT, Mermaid text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph (which likely returns a structured object) and graph_summary (which summarizes rather than renders). The verb+resource pattern is precise and 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 graph data in serialized text formats, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_graph or get_subgraph, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. An agent would need to infer from format options that this is the export tool, but no explicit guidance is given.

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