export

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic function. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file creation in the exports/ folder), required permissions, or whether the operation is safe. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 short and direct, but it inaccurately limits formats to just 'JSON or JSONL' while the schema includes 'portable'. Still, it is front-loaded and avoids verbosity.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the export behavior, file naming, overwrite policy, or how the 'portable' format differs. For a data export tool, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'tag and date filters' but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 memories in JSON or JSONL format, using a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('memories'). However, it omits mention of the 'portable' format available in the schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like 'backup' or 'memory_changelog', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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