export_subgraph

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate the primary behavior: collecting a page and neighbors up to N hops into a markdown bundle. However, it doesn't clarify potential side effects (if any), return delivery mechanism (file vs inline), or operation limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action ('Export') and clearly packs the core semantics into a compact phrase.

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 tool has no output schema and annotations none, so its complete behavior must be described. The description leaves gaps: the default value/fmax for depth, how the bundle is delivered, and prerequisites (e.g., permissions or an existing graph). Given the tool includes two parameters and is part of a rich sibling set, this description is insufficient for fully correct use.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly map 'slug' or 'depth' to the mentioned page/hopping limits. 'page' hints at 'slug' and 'N hops' hints at 'depth', but the mapping is implicit rather than stated. Since the schema itself provides no additional guidance, this insufficient compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 precise verb ('Export') and a clear resource ('a page + connected neighbors up to N hops'), naming the output format ('self-contained markdown bundle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_wiki_page' (which reads one page) and 'find_related' (which finds related items without exporting).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools might be preferable for simpler tasks like exporting a single page. The usage context is only implied by the word 'Export' and the 'subgraph' concept.

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