export_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's assertion of 'Export' is consistent. The description adds context about what is included (memories, episodes, profiles) and the file format (JSONL), which is helpful. No contradictions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple export tool with three well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and purpose. It could mention file overwrite behavior or that the operation is safe, but the annotations already cover the read-only nature. Overall sufficient.

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 100% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for any of the three parameters. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema sufficiently documents parameters.

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 verb 'Export', the specific resources ('memories, episodes, and profiles'), the output format ('JSONL file'), and the purpose ('for backup or portability'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like import_memories or store.

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 implies usage for backup or portability but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not conditions. No sibling tool differentiation or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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