memoryos_export_user

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns data directly or initiates an async job, or any error conditions. The description gives only a high-level action without behavioral details.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

The description gives enough for a basic understanding but omits important context such as output format, whether the export is synchronous or asynchronous, and how the result is delivered (e.g., file, job ID). Given the presence of job-status sibling tools, async behavior is plausible but not stated.

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?

The sole parameter external_user_id has no schema description beyond its name, and the tool description adds no further meaning. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's format, constraints, or purpose unclear.

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 the action (export), the target (a tenant user's memories and version history), and the purpose (for access requests), making it easy to distinguish from other memory-related tools.

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 usage for access requests but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like memoryos_get_memory or memoryos_get_context. No direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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