export_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the return value is a complete JSON string representation of the map and listing node fields. It implicitly signals a read-only operation through the word 'export' but does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, which is a minor omission.

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 compact and well-structured: a single purpose-defining first sentence followed by concise details about output shape and optional fields. No redundant or filler content.

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 description is complete for a zero-parameter export tool: it states the action, the object, the output format, and the node shape. An output schema exists to further document return values. It could briefly relate to import_map or confirm non-destructiveness, but nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately notes the operation applies to the current map, which supplies the only relevant context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Export the current Freeplane mind map to canonical JSON." This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling import_map, and the following details about JSON structure leave no doubt about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (whenever the current mind map needs to be exported as JSON), and the sibling tool name import_map makes the alternative obvious. However, it does not explicitly call out import_map or state conditions for choosing one over the other, so it stops short of full guidance.

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