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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output type and the all-versus-one-project scoping, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, error behavior, or what happens when an invalid project is specified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: the action, the scope alternatives, and the output format are all present.

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 export tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and output format. It remains incomplete regarding return value details, error conditions, and any limitations (e.g., large exports), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the 'project' parameter. It does: 'or one project' indicates that the parameter is optional and scopes the export to a single project. It does not explain what format the project value should take (name, id), but it adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states a specific action ('Export') applied to a specific resource ('memories') and specifies the output format ('JSON dict'). It also clarifies the optional project scoping, distinguishing it from related tools like import_memories or list_memories.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as recall, list_memories, or import_memories. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where export is preferred.

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