as_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It mentions the output is a formatted block of memories and lists supported formats. However, it doesn't disclose read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits, which leaves some gaps.

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 concise: two sentences plus a usage directive. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides a clear 'USE THIS WHEN' block. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, the description should provide more parameter context. The output schema exists but isn't referenced. The description covers purpose and usage well but leaves parameter semantics incomplete.

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%, meaning the description explains none of the 8 parameters. Only 'format' is implied by listing supported formats. The meanings of 'query', 'max_tokens', 'limit', 'tags', 'type', 'include_metadata', and 'verbatim' are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient.

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 tool's purpose: 'Export memories formatted for LLM context injection.' It specifies the resource (memories) and action (export into format), distinguishing it from other memory tools that perform different operations.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS WHEN: you need to inject relevant memories directly into a prompt or system message.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it doesn't specify when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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