mindgap_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the default output path and that absolute paths are allowed, but does not specify whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or if it captures all data types. The behavior beyond file naming is opaque.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds key parameter detail. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential: what it does and the parameter behavior. It does not explain return values or confirm comprehensiveness of the snapshot, but for an export tool, it is largely sufficient.

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 has one optional parameter 'out' with no description. The tool description adds meaning by stating the default path pattern and that an absolute path is allowed. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well, though it could be more precise about the parameter format.

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 explicitly states 'Write a JSON snapshot of the whole graph', which is a specific verb ('write') and resource ('JSON snapshot of the whole graph'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mindgap_add_node' or 'mindgap_ingest'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not suggest when not to use it or compare to other tools like 'mindgap_get_node' or 'mindgap_stats'. The usage context is only implied.

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