cos_graph_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: max_nodes hard cap, include_spine ancestor-chain behavior, mode view-blend semantics, and exclude_kinds sentinel defaults. These go beyond annotations, though references like 'S3' and 'TASK-141' are insider-cryptic.

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?

Lead sentence states purpose, then a compact arg list. Each param earns its place. Slight deduction for cryptic inline refs ('S3', 'TASK-141') that could be clarified without bloat.

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 7-param export tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers behavior and defaults well. Missing explicit return-value prose, but output schema covers that; lack of when-vs-alternatives keeps it from 5.

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 has 7 params at 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains every parameter: format values, root_uid semantics, edge_types filter, max_nodes cap, include_spine chain, mode options, exclude_kinds sentinel. This substantially adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Export a subgraph as json | mermaid | dot', a specific verb+resource+output formats. It clearly differentiates from sibling graph tools (query, search, context) by focusing on export. The formatting and parameter list reinforce purpose.

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 through the export verb and parameter explanations (e.g., root_uid empty, mode when no root pinned), but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives like cos_graph_query or cos_graph_search. No when-not or alternatives named.

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