memory_export

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

Without annotations, description must carry burden. It adds that events are signed conditionally and that limit controls number of memories. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, error conditions, or permissions required. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise (about 60 words), well-structured with purpose first, then explanation, use cases, and formal Args/Returns. No 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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), description covers what the tool does, how it works, and its return value. Could mention it does not modify memories, but largely complete for its purpose.

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 0%, but description explicitly defines 'limit: Maximum number of memories to export (default 100)', adding meaning beyond the schema's default and type alone. Compensates well for the single parameter.

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 'Export memories as Nostr NIP-78 events', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list or memory_sync by focusing on export/backup functionality.

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?

Description says 'Useful for backup, sharing, or manual relay publishing', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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