export_call_graph

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that output is a string suitable for rendering, may be large for big projects, and suggests using max_nodes to limit. This is good behavioral context beyond minimal requirements.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and format, each sentence earning its place. No fluff.

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 output schema exists, description covers return type and format. Could mention error handling or contract_key subfields, but overall complete for the tool's scope.

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 descriptions provide parameter details (coverage 100% in schema), but the tool description adds value by summarizing filtering options (contracts, entry points) and size warning. Baseline 3, plus extra context.

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 exports the project's function call graph in Mermaid or DOT format, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_function_callees) by focusing on visual export.

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 says 'Use this when you need a visual representation...or for documentation', providing clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives like get_function_callees/get_function_callers.

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