export_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and output format but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether this is read-only or creates a file), permission requirements, or behavior when the output path is invalid or already exists. For a tool that writes to a user-specified path, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a brief note about the output_path parameter without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and no parameter documentation in the schema. The description provides the core purpose but omits critical context: whether the operation is read-only or writes to disk, what happens if the path is invalid, and whether the output includes metadata or just memory content. An output schema exists, which may describe the return value, but the description still lacks enough detail for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'output_path' parameter. The description mentions 'user-specified path' but does not clarify whether it should be a file path or directory, whether the file will be created or overwritten, or any format constraints. This leaves the agent to guess the exact semantics of the only parameter.

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' and the resource 'all active and archived memories', and specifies the output format (portable JSON) and destination (user-specified path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_memory and list_memories, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 a use case: exporting all memories for backup or transfer. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_memories or import_memory, but the scope ('all active and archived') and format ('portable JSON') provide enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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