Export Graph

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the set of output formats but does not disclose whether the tool returns file content directly, triggers a download, or includes metadata beyond nodes and edges. With annotations present, this level is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'Export' and packs all key details (nodes, edges, four formats) into minimal words.

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 tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description adequately conveys the exported content and formats. It lacks explicit mention of return type (e.g., file vs. raw string) but the format list implies how output should be interpreted. Combined with full annotations and parameter coverage, this is nearly complete.

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 both 'format' and 'project' clearly described inline. The description lists the format enum values but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the baseline.

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's function: 'Export project nodes and edges' with specific output formats (JSON, DOT, Mermaid, interactive HTML). This verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_issues or export_spec, which target different data types.

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 usage for exporting graph data in various formats but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., query_graph, export_issues). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the decision partially to the agent.

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