kg_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify output details (edge list, deduplicated, undirected) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, or has side effects. 'Export' implies non-destructive but it is not explicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, output format, and purpose. It is concise without wasted words, though the citation to Collins & Quillian is slightly academic but acceptable.

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 simple 0-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the output format, and the intended use case. It does not mention limitations or interactions with other tools, but that is not critical for this low-complexity operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a description is not required to explain parameters when none exist, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Export'), the resource ('memory network'), and the output format ('knowledge-graph edge list with nodes and deduplicated undirected edges'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export_memories or memory_map, which also may export or map the memory network.

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 phrase 'for external visualization' gives a behavioral context and implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be more appropriate. Given the large number of sibling tools, the lack of exclusions or alternatives weakens the usage guidance.

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