memory_export

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden: it discloses the supported formats and which provider endpoints back each bank type, and notes the all-banks option. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether exports are paginated/streamed, or any size/time limits, so a mutation-free export is left to inference.

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 tight sentences with the core action and formats front-loaded, zero repetition of the name. The provider-endpoint shorthand is dense but earns its place as implementation context.

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 simple two-parameter, zero-required export with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, target format and per-provider source behavior. Missing read-only/pagination notes are minor rather than blocking for a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only echoes the format enum and the bank's role for Hindsight listings without adding syntax, defaults beyond the schema, or examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export memories') plus the target serialization ('PMM v1 (json/jsonl)'), which cleanly separates it from memory_import, memory_recall and memory_search. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of 5.

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 only implied by the verb 'export' – the agent can infer backup/migration rather than live retrieval, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion against memory_recall/memory_search. The second sentence routes per-provider behavior but says nothing about when to choose this tool.

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