Life Graph Export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reassert safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the private export scope, the cap behavior behind full=true, optional event-people links, the OAuth/scoped-credential requirement, and the $0.25 cost. This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states what the tool exports, followed by the key flag, optional links, and auth/cost note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema, annotations, and the tool's simple parameter structure, the description covers essential invocation details: scope, the full flag, optional links, auth, and cost. The only notable gaps are explicit guidance around the max_people/event_links_limit caps and alternatives, but these are not critical for a successful call.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for underdocumented parameters. It explicitly mentions full=true and 'Optional event-people links,' but it never names or explains max_people or event_links_limit, and 'larger capped list' is vague about the actual cap. This is only partial compensation for four parameters.

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 identifies the action ('export') and the object ('private life-graph'), and it enumerates the graph's contents: favorites/VIP plus people with edges or recent event tags. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_life_context or get_people, but the name and content make the purpose distinguishable.

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 context through phrases like 'Explicit private life-graph export' and 'Pass full=true for a larger capped list,' and it states an authentication requirement. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over related siblings such as get_people or get_life_context, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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