memory_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether files are overwritten, if a directory is created, how memories are organized (e.g., one file per memory), or any side effects. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient for a simple purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability, but it does not contain unnecessary words.

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 the presence of many sibling tools and the simplicity of the schema, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter details, output structure (though output schema exists, the description could still clarify), and usage context. An agent would struggle to determine if this is the right tool for a given task.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the 'project' parameter or the format of 'export_path'. An agent cannot infer that 'project' likely filters memories by project or that the path should point to a directory. Parameter meanings are entirely opaque.

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 that the tool exports all active memories to human-readable .md files, specifying the verb (Export), resource (active memories), and output format. This distinguishes it from other memory tools like import or load, but it could be more explicit about where the files are created (implied by export_path).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as memory_make_portable or memory_load_from_folder. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this export is appropriate.

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