Export a mind map

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description corroborates this by stating it writes a file, returns the path, does not overwrite by default, and needs no network. That overwrite-safety and offline detail is genuine added context beyond the annotations, though permissions and error behavior are unmentioned.

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?

Three sentences with zero padding: capability, output form, then invocation timing and the overwrite caveat. The most important constraint (no accidental overwrite) is placed where it is read.

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 an 11-parameter writer with no output schema, the description covers the return value ('Returns the file path'), the non-destructive default, and the offline guarantee, so an agent can call it safely. Missing only the default output location, which the outputPath schema already supplies.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented, and the description adds no per-parameter detail. It does reinforce the overwrite default in prose, which slightly clarifies the most consequential flag, but otherwise the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Render a Markdown outline into a standalone HTML mind map') plus the output characteristics (interactive, single file, no network). It implies the distinction from the url/pdf/text_to_mindmap siblings by framing itself as the step after an outline already exists, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

'Call this after you have written or refined an outline' gives a clear triggering condition for the tool, which is the key decision point given the conversion-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it.

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