Export memories

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the concrete return shape (count/namespace/memories) and the migration workflow, which go beyond what annotations declare.

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?

Two tight sentences; the purpose leads and the downstream workflow follows. Minor formatting oddity with the trailing markdown fence in the description text, but no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers purpose, output shape, and the migration handoff to import_memories, which is sufficient given there's no output schema and annotations cover safety. A note on large-vault size/pagination would complete it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, where the schema already explains that "" means everything. The description reinforces the namespace scoping via the returned namespace field but adds little syntax detail; with full schema coverage a baseline of 3-4 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (memories) plus the output format (JSON-serializable dicts) and the use case (backup or migration). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_memories and memory_stats.

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?

Explicitly frames usage around backup or migration and names import_memories as the downstream tool, giving a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't state exclusions or contrast with list_memories/recall, so it falls short of a 5.

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