export_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that only active memories are included and that output is versioned with retrieval stats, but it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, potential payload size, or any response/error format beyond 'JSON payload'.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every phrase ('all active', 'portable', 'versioned', 'includes retrieval stats') adds substantive meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the return value and scope. It could be improved by noting intended use cases and non-destructive behavior, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing output characteristics (versioned, includes retrieval stats) even though there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), names the resource ('all active memories'), and specifies the output format ('portable JSON payload, versioned, includes retrieval stats'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_memories and kg_export.

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 the tool is used when a portable backup or transfer of memories is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as kg_export or import_memories, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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