memory_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it clarifies that data is returned rather than a file written, warns that the payload may be large and cross-project, and documents the transport-limit error on oversized responses. It stops short of describing any chunking or pagination workaround, so an agent hitting the limit has no stated remedy.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the use case and the load/error caveat. No filler or restated name, and every sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return characteristics; it names the payload collections, the error mode, and the alternatives. For a zero-parameter read-only export, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The note that no project filter exists is useful framing rather than parameter documentation.

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 and resource ('Return a versioned JSON export of stored AgentMemory data') and enumerates the payload contents (sessions, observations, memories, graph, derived collections). It also distinguishes itself from the two export-shaped siblings by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('backup or transfer') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: memory_obsidian_export for Markdown files, memory_snapshot_create for a local Git snapshot. It also flags the absence of a project filter, which is a usage-relevant constraint.

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