story_graph_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (JSON object containing nodes and edges), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state whether the export is read-only, handle missing scenes, or affect state. A stronger description would add a one-line guarantee of non-mutation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and expected output with no filler or repetition of the schema. Every part earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter export tool this is mostly complete: the agent knows what to call and what to get back. However it lacks any mention of the behavior of the optional graphId, any error or fallback behavior, and there is no output schema to give the agent more shape on the JSON structure. It covers the essentials but leaves some contextual gap.

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 schema covers only graphId with a description; sceneId has none, giving 50% coverage. The description adds only a vague 'named scene' gloss for sceneId and says nothing about how graphId influences the export. Given the incomplete schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') with a specific resource (the Story Graph for a named scene) and tells what the result contains (JSON with nodes and edges). No sibling tool targets the story graph, so it is clearly distinguishable from alternatives.

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 word 'Export' implies that this is the tool to call when story-graph data is needed, but there is no explicit 'when to use' statement, no exclusions, and no context about when other sibling tools would be more appropriate. The guidance is acceptable but only implied.

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