Graph Export

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns the graph as a string in the requested format, which is not disclosed by annotations alone.

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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, bullet points for formats, and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a full schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, formats, and return type. It is complete enough for the agent to understand and use the tool, though it omits error handling or edge cases (e.g., what happens with invalid format).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the format options but does not add meaning beyond the schema's description of each parameter (e.g., config_path, format, mermaid_limit). The description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 exports the agent dependency graph in specific graph-native formats (graphml, cypher, dot, mermaid, json). The verb 'export' and resource are well-defined, and the listing of formats distinguishes it from other tools like context_graph or scan tools.

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 use when a graph-native format is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., context_graph for other representations) or when not to use it. No exclusions or preconditions are provided.

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