memkernel_export_notices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses inclusion of cleared notices, exclusion of decisions/scratchpads/local IDs/leases, and that output is portable JSON. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or permissions, but the content-boundary disclosure is genuinely informative beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose, then content boundaries. Slightly fragmented across line breaks, but every sentence contributes (sharing intent, review advice, inclusion/exclusion rules) with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the content in/exclusion rules cover the main ambiguity. Missing only explicit read-only/permission context, which is minor for an export tool with a complete content scope statement.

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% for the single optional notice_ids parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Select IDs to limit disclosure' explains the parameter's role and implies that omitting it exports everything, which adds meaning beyond the schema, but format/default specifics are not elaborated.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (notices) and clarifies the output is portable JSON for explicit sharing. The content-scoping sentence ('No decisions, scratchpads, local IDs or leases are included') implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_notices and import_notices, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

'for explicit sharing. Review it before sending' and 'Select IDs to limit disclosure' imply the sharing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-instead guidance (e.g., list_notices vs export, or export vs import_notices). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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