export_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with all memories and metadata, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, permissions needed, or performance considerations like data size or timeouts, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by output details. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its purpose, and the return format, which aligns with the output schema. No additional information is needed for effective use in this context.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, but a perfect score would require explicit mention of the lack of parameters.

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 specific action ('Export') and resource ('all saved memories'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_memories' by specifying the output format and purpose ('as JSON for backup or transfer'). It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just listing.

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 states the purpose ('for backup or transfer'), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'export_for_ai' or 'export_knowledge', which could provide more precise guidance.

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