export_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only snapshot-like action, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, whether the output is returned inline or as a file, or any constraints like size limits.

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 short and front-loaded with the key action. The format list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum, but it is compact and harmless, so there is minimal wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and format options, but without an output schema it leaves ambiguity about what the exported result looks like. An agent might need extra context on whether the response is a serialized graph string, a file path, or a download action.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single optional 'format' parameter with an enum covering all valid values, so the description adds no new semantic meaning. The format list in the description mirrors the schema rather than extending it, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('the current knowledge graph'), making the tool's action unmistakable. It also lists concrete output formats, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that summarize or analyze the graph.

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 when to use this tool — when you need the full graph in a serialized format — but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like get_graph_summary or get_graph_analytics. There is no 'if you need X, use Y instead' guidance, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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