export_all_graphs

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the clipboard replacement side effect and notes that dpi, width, and height parameters are unused (kept for API compatibility). This provides important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral note, followed by an Args section. It is clear and efficient, though the Args section format is slightly verbose. No extraneous information.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, but an output schema indicating return value (per-graph list), the description covers major aspects: behavior, side effects, unused parameters, and return type. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., open project) but is largely complete for an export 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains output_dir ('Output directory (Windows or WSL style). Created if missing.') and format ('Image format: png, jpg, tif, bmp') while marking dpi, width, and height as unused. This adds significant value over the schema, though not all parameters get detailed usage syntax.

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 explicitly states 'Export every graph in the project to image files (one per graph).' This specifies the verb (export), resource (graphs), and scope (all graphs in the project), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_graph (single graph) and export_graph_sized (single graph with dimension control).

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 warns about clipboard replacement ('Windows clipboard contents are replaced during export'), providing a condition to consider before use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like export_graph or export_graph_sized, though the sibling names imply the use case for bulk export.

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