memoryguard_history_export

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 communicates that the export concerns raw history rather than memory, but does not disclose output format, whether a file is produced, side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a meaningful transparency gap for an export tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and constraints, and the second adds a meaningful distinction that helps prevent misuse by steering the agent away from long-term memory concepts.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important operational context missing. An agent cannot tell what the export returns, how the output is delivered, what scope means, or how session_ids should be obtained and passed. The description is too thin for a tool with these gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. 'Explicitly selected sessions' loosely maps to session_ids, but the optional scope object is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the array property name and fails to clarify how session_ids should be formatted or what scope controls.

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 identifies the operation as exporting explicitly selected sessions, which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool from memory-related siblings by stating 'This is raw-history evidence, not long-term memory.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the verb and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when raw-history evidence from explicitly selected sessions is needed, rather than long-term memory. It provides a useful exclusion ('not long-term memory') but gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer history_read, history_search, or history_list_sessions instead.

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