Export a knowledge base index snapshot as a zip for migrating to another machine or directory, enabling import without re-embedding.
把知识库的索引快照（chunks + 向量 + FTS）导出为 zip 文件，用于换机/换目录迁移，导入后无需全量重新 embedding。要求缓存已启用且完成过至少一次索引。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out_path | Yes | 必填，快照输出路径（.zip） | |
| vault_path | No | 可选，已注册知识库的绝对路径；仅注册了一个库时可省略 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what gets exported (chunks + vectors + FTS), why it is useful (import avoids full re-embedding), and a prerequisite (cache enabled and at lest one index). It doesn't state whether the operation mutates anything or what happens on failure, but for an export operation this is reasonably transparent.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action (export snapshot to zip), then gives the use case and prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 tool with only 2 params and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and prerequisites. It doesn't cover error conditions or post-conditions, but the agent can call the tool correctly with the information provided.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (out_path and vault_path), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already says.
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 states a specific verb (export) and a specific resource (knowledge base index snapshot: chunks + vectors + FTS) and a concrete use case (migration to a new machine/directory). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like kb_search or kb_read, which operate on content rather than on snapshots.
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?
Clearly states when to use the tool: for migration to a new machine or directory, so no full re-embedding is needed. It also gives a precondition (cache enabled and at least one completed index). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.