export_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notion of rendering the 'current' graph, which is consistent, but does not disclose behavior on large graphs, output size limits, or any side effects. With strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not enriched beyond the structured 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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action verb 'Render', and lists the output formats without padding. Irrelevant details are absent, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, a rich schema, and strong annotations, the description is almost sufficient. It lacks a mention of what the output looks like (e.g., a string), but this is reasonably implied by 'JSON, Graphviz DOT, or Mermaid text' and the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for straightforward use.

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 100%, with each of the six parameters well described (format enum, maxNodes/maxEdges limits, edgeKinds filter, includeAssets/includeExternal flags). The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 renders the current OKF graph into JSON, DOT, or Mermaid text, identifying the specific verb ('Render'), resource ('current OKF graph'), and output formats. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_graph or graph_summary, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling graph-related tools (get_graph, get_subgraph, graph_summary), the description offers no exclusions or preferred usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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