export_memories

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that by default a file is written to a specific path, that return_content changes behavior to return content, that user_id/agent_id auto-detect when omitted, and what the return value is. This is strong disclosure, though it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting or directory creation.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-sentence purpose statement, followed by compact OPTIONAL parameter lines and a short return/use summary. Every line adds value and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: the main behavior, defaults, return values, and common use cases. It is incomplete only in omitting the verbose parameter and not detailing potential file overwrite behavior, but overall it is robust enough for correct 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. It explains format values, auto-detection for user_id/agent_id, the default output path, include_metadata default, and return_content behavior. However, the 'verbose' parameter is never mentioned, which is a gap given that the schema provides no description for any 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Export memories to JSON or Markdown format for backup or migration.' It clearly distinguishes export from the many read/search/mutation siblings by immediately naming the output formats and the use cases of backup and migration.

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 'Use for' line gives explicit contexts: backup, migration between backends, documentation, sharing. It does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like import_memories, but the intended usage is clear enough that an agent can decide when it is appropriate.

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