export_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the blob is portable and readable without the server or model, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the export is read-only), output size, error handling, or any performance implications, leaving gaps for an agent assessing risk or expectations.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key differentiator (portability and independence). Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is missing critical details: the purpose of 'path' and what the output actually looks like beyond 'portable open-format blob'. It does not explain the return format, size limits, or any requirements for calling it, leaving the agent to guess.

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 schema defines a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description makes no mention of it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to clarify what the path parameter means or how to use it, providing no added value beyond the bare 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?

The description states a clear action (export) and resource (the whole substrate) as a portable blob. It is distinct from sibling tools like remember or recall by its export operation, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast it with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is used when you need to export the entire substrate, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.

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