memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical operational constraints: the 60-second rate limit cooldown and the JSON output format. It also clarifies scope ('all memories'). Does not mention read-only safety or output schema details, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes purpose and format, second provides critical rate limit warning. Front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately terse given the simple operation.

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?

Appropriate for a zero-parameter export tool. Since an output schema exists, the description correctly omits return value details. Covers the essential operational constraint (rate limiting) that would normally appear in annotations. Could be improved by stating the read-only nature, but sufficient for 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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, and the 'all memories' scope clarification compensates for the lack of filtering 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 states a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('all memories'), format ('JSON'), and use cases ('backup or transfer'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like memory_export_graph by specifying JSON format and full dataset scope.

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?

Provides positive usage context ('for backup or transfer') implying archival/migration scenarios, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from memory_list for viewing or memory_export_graph for graph structure).

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