export_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates what the name implies. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether an existing file is overwritten, whether vectors are included by default (the schema says true, the description is silent), or what the tool returns — and there is no output schema to clarify.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The verb leads, and the format parenthetical packs the key parameter dimension into the description efficiently without repeating schema content.

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 schema is rich (100% parameter coverage, one enum, clear defaults), but with no annotations and no output schema, the prose must supply the operational context — and it doesn't. Missing: safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), return value or confirmation behavior, file-overwrite semantics, and usage context relative to import/recall siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies — all six parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description's mention of formats and file output lightly echoes format and output_path but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 specific verb ('Export') and resource ('memories') with a destination ('to file') and enumerates the supported formats (Parquet, JSON, CSV). This is unambiguous and naturally separates it from siblings like import_memories, recall, and hybrid_recall, even without naming 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?

Usage is implied by the verb — when memories need to be written to an external file — but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given. The description doesn't contrast this with import_memories (the inverse) or recall/hybrid_recall (in-memory retrieval), so an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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