export_case_to_flowgraph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the graph and optionally writes it to output_file, and describes the round-trip behavior. It does not mention error cases or side effects beyond the explicit file write, but for this simple conversion it is adequately transparent.

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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: the conversion action, the return/write behavior, and the round-trip relationship. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundancy.

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 with two parameters, and the description covers the input, output, optional file writing, and the inverse operation. Given the presence of an output schema, the return value is adequately addressed, and no significant context is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that parameters_file is the ProjectParameters.json input, and that output_file is an optional destination for writing the graph. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify that these are file paths.

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 clearly states the tool converts a ProjectParameters.json into a Flowgraph graph.json for the Kratos FlowGraph editor. It names the specific action, input, output format, and differentiates from the sibling import_flowgraph_to_case by mentioning round-trip compatibility.

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 context is clear: this exports a case to a visual node editor graph. It mentions the round-trip with import_flowgraph_to_case, which serves as an alternative, but does not explicitly state when to use one over the other or list exclusions.

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