polarity_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'the full graph' and warns about size. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or side effects. The size warning is helpful but limited.

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 two sentences that front-load the core action and format, then provide usage guidance and a size warning. Every sentence adds value with no 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage scenarios, and a key behavioral trait (size). It could mention if the export is synchronous or the response structure, but it is adequate for this simple tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It appropriately explains what the tool exports without parameter 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 action (export), the exact resource (user's full personal knowledge graph), and the output format (JSON in polarity/v1 format). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like polarity_dump or polarity_get_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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when the user asks for a snapshot of their exocortex, wants their data, or asks to download their .polarity file.' It also warns that the result 'can be large.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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