Exports core memories as a narrative diary entry for the user, serving as the only outlet from the private core area when explicitly requested or during farewell or migration.
把核心印象写成一篇日记交给用户。核心区平时不对用户开放，这是唯一的出口——只在用户明确要求、或临别/迁移时用。输出是叙事，不是条目清单。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | 是否附上结构化原文供备份/迁移（默认否，只给叙事） | |
| style | No | letter=一封回顾的信；log=按时间的日记条目 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does disclose important context: the source is a normally-closed core zone and this is its sole exit, and the output is narrative rather than itemized. It does not say whether calling it mutates or consumes the underlying memory, nor any permission or rate constraints, so the full burden isn't met.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information — purpose, access exclusivity, usage trigger, and output form — with the purpose front-loaded and no padding.
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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, gating, and output shape adequately. It omits whether the diary action affects or clears the stored core impressions, which would matter for a sensitive 'sole exit' operation.
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%, with both 'raw' and 'style' documented in-schema, so the baseline applies. The description's '输出是叙事，不是条目清单' reinforces the default narrative output but adds no per-parameter detail beyond the 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?
A concrete verb and resource are stated: writing core impressions as a diary handed to the user. The phrase '核心区平时不对用户开放，这是唯一的出口' also implicitly differentiates it from sibling retrieval tools like pm_recall, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 gives clear trigger conditions — only when the user explicitly requests it, or at farewell/migration moments. The 'only' phrasing also rules out routine use, though no alternative tool is named for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.