管家记忆-导出

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source (local memory) and output format (JSON), but does not state whether the operation is non-destructive, whether archived entries are included by default, or what the exact response structure looks like. This leaves important behavioral details undefined.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler and puts the core action first. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices detail that would have made the tool more self-explanatory.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It fails to explain include_archived behavior, the return format beyond 'JSON', or how this relates to sibling memory operations. An agent can guess the basic intent but not confidently invoke it correctly in edge cases.

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 only parameter, include_archived, has no description in the schema (schema description coverage is 0%) and the tool description does not mention it. The parameter name and default value give some hint, but the description adds no meaning and does not explain how false would alter the export.

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 action (导出/export), a resource (本地管家记忆/local memory), and the output format (JSON). It is clear and identifiable, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling memory tools such as memory_search, memory_import, or memory_save.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that memory_search should be used for querying, memory_update for editing, or memory_import for restoring data, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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