nero_memory_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the core behavior (exporting to JSON file) and prefix filtering. However, it omits details like whether the file is overwritten or appended, or if the export is destructive to memory. The word 'dump' suggests non-destructive but is not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, use cases, and hints at the parameters. Minor omissions like error handling or file behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond indicating prefix matching and file output, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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), resource (memory bus entries), and output (JSON file on disk). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like nero_memory_read (which likely returns data inline) and nero_memory_write (which modifies memory) by specifying the file export behavior.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for pipeline recovery, monitoring, and reports.' This gives context on when to apply the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like nero_memory_read for interactive queries.

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