export_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful traits: self-contained HTML, no external requests, browser-compatible, node/edge styling, and interactivity. However, it does not clarify whether the tool writes a file to disk, whether it overwrites an existing file, or whether exporting has any side effects on project data.

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 five short, information-dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds distinguishing characteristics and usage context. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return value details are covered. However, the only parameter is left completely unexplained, and file-output behavior is ambiguous. These are real gaps for an agent deciding whether to pass output_path or rely on the default.

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 only parameter, output_path, is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The description does nothing to explain what output_path controls, what its null default means, or how it should be supplied. This is a significant gap because the description must compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Generate a self-contained HTML file visualising the project as an interactive graph.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling project-management tools such as create_task, list_tickets, and init_project, which do different things. The description also explains graph features, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage context: 'On-demand — call when you want a snapshot.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that this is a minor gap.

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