mermaid_jam.export

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral insight. It reveals that the tool writes files and returns next steps, but omits critical details such as whether it overwrites existing files, what specific next steps look like, or any side effects. The phrase 'source + open friendly' is vague.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and target, and the second adds clarifying constraints. Every clause serves a purpose 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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate. It mentions 'returns next steps' but does not describe them. There is no mention of error conditions, prerequisites, or file behavior (e.g., overwriting). The tool is used in a context with many sibling tools, yet the description does not elaborate on when this export is preferred.

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 coverage is 50%: 'source' and 'research' have descriptions, while 'intent' and 'hypothesis' do not. The tool description adds context for 'source' (research or simulation) but offers no additional semantics for the two undocumented parameters. The agent lacks guidance on how to set 'intent' or 'hypothesis'.

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 it writes Mermaid Jam-ready FigJam source artifacts from research or simulation runs, specifying the format (.mmd/.md files) and location. It also clarifies what it does not do, distinguishing it from clipboard-based alternatives. However, the term 'Mermaid Jam-ready' may be jargon that is not immediately clear to all users.

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 indicates it is for saving files ('source + open friendly') and explicitly excludes clipboard automation, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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