memory_export_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey the scope and the auto-detection behavior for the project path, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is non-destructive, whether it returns JSON directly or writes a file, or what happens if git root detection fails. 'Export' implies a read operation, but more explicit transparency would be stronger.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the purpose comes first, followed by the only parameter. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the exported content, the format, and project resolution behavior, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: it clarifies that 'project' is a root path, that it is optional, and that it is auto-detected from the git root when omitted. This is exactly the information an agent needs beyond the schema's bare type/default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), names the exact resource ('all memories and conflicts'), and specifies the output format ('portable JSON'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_tool, memory_get_tool, and memory_import_tool.

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 operation is clear enough that an agent can infer this is for full exports/backups, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of scenarios like partial exports or selective retrieval, which the sibling tools might handle.

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