memory_export

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the output format (JSON bundle) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, has limits (beyond input schema), or what happens under edge cases like no pinned memories.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and output. Could benefit from structured breakdown of parameters or examples, but remains efficient.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters affect the export, what the JSON bundle contains, or any behavioral traits. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the 5 parameters (cwd, limit, scope, project, include_profile). The parameter names alone are insufficient for correct usage. Description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states it exports pinned memory and a computed project profile as a JSON bundle. It uses a specific verb and resource, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools (though no other export tool exists). Could be more precise about what 'pinned memory' and 'project profile' entail.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but description does not differentiate usage scenarios.

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