veto_memory_export

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'exports'. It omits details about file overwriting behavior, permissions required, or size limits. More critically, the description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' because exporting is inherently a read operation on memory (though it writes a file, it does not modify the memory state itself). This lowers the score significantly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks mention of return values or error handling, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 covers both parameters completely, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It clarifies that markdown produces a human-readable file, which is helpful but not substantial beyond the 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?

Description clearly states it exports all local memory with specific content types (sessions, knowledge, patterns, decisions, project maps). It distinguishes from sibling memory-related tools by focusing on export functionality.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each format (json for backup/transfer, markdown for human-readable documentation). However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_memory_search or veto_memory_store, nor does it state prerequisites or prohibitions.

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