memory_export

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies memory, or any side effects. 'All active memories' is ambiguous, and there is no mention of permissions or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but lacks essential details that would make it useful. For a tool with no schema coverage, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after export (e.g., return value from output schema), the scope of 'active memories', or file handling behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. 'export_path' is required, but not described as file vs directory. 'project' is optional with no hint of its purpose (e.g., filtering by project).

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?

Description clearly states the action (Export), resource (all active memories), and output format (human-readable .md files). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_import or memory_make_portable by specifying the export to .md files.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings include memory_import and memory_make_portable, but the description does not clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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