quipu_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity constraint and the ROOT fallback, but says nothing about export volume, determinism guarantees, or what happens with a CONSTRUCT returning empty results — and the schema's 'Unknown IRI is an error' is the only failure mode disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scoping options come first and the mutual-exclusivity rule lands immediately after, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs.

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 four-parameter, no-required-args, no-output-schema export tool this covers the essentials: scope modes, default behavior, exclusivity, and error on unknown IRI. Only the meaning of 'deterministic' and any size/streaming expectations are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already handled, but the description contributes a cross-parameter constraint absent from the schema: the scope fields are mutually exclusive. That is genuine added semantics that prevents a malformed call combining graph and group_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export deterministic RDF') and enumerates the four scoping modes (named graph, provenance group, SPARQL CONSTRUCT, ROOT default). An agent can tell this is a read-only serialization tool, though it never names a sibling such as quipu_query or quipu_import to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides real invocation guidance: 'ROOT when no scope is supplied' and 'Scope fields are mutually exclusive' tell the agent how to pick parameters. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over alternatives like quipu_query for querying or quipu_import for the inverse direction.

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