memory_export

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

Without annotations, the description adds the rate limit ('60s cooldown'), which is a crucial behavioral trait. It also implies a non-destructive read operation, though it doesn't detail potential size impacts.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ending with rate limit. No redundant words or filler.

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?

Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and the tool's simple nature, the description fully covers purpose and constraints. The rate limit is a valuable addition for planning.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but correctly states what the tool does (exports all memories). Baseline 4 applies.

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 'Export all memories to JSON format for backup or transfer', with a specific verb (Export), resource (all memories), format (JSON), and purpose (backup or transfer). This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_export_graph.

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 usage for backup or transfer, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like memory_export_graph or memory_import. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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