memory_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add scope. It usefully enumerates export contents (knowledge, sessions, relations, action log). It omits the side-effect that save_to_file=true writes to <memory-dir>/backups/ and gives no size/performance caveat for large exports, which sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint.

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 tight sentences: purpose/format first, then the scope of contents. Zero filler and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and complete annotations, the description covers what is exported and why. Minor gaps (where the file lands, export size limits) are largely covered by the schema, keeping this near-complete.

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% for both parameters (project filter, save_to_file destination/default), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 clear verb (Export) and resource (all knowledge), plus the output format (JSON), and enumerates the included data (knowledge, sessions, relations, agent action log). Among 60+ memory_* siblings this is unambiguously the export/migration tool. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so 4 rather than 5.

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 backup or migration" gives the intended use context, which is more than nothing. However there is no when-not guidance (e.g. use memory_get for a single record) and no mention of alternatives, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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