Export memory to JSON

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of exposing behavior. It discloses an important safety constraint ('Only writes inside that directory') and states what the tool returns (file path, size, JSON preview). It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but it covers the most material side effect for an export tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and target location; the second adds the safety guard and return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming return values (file path, size, JSON preview). Combined with full parameter documentation in the schema and the directory-restriction detail, the agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents both filename and includeInteractions. The description adds only the phrase 'optionally raw interactions,' which restates the includeInteractions parameter rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action ('Export'), a concrete resource (preferences, lessons, profile, optionally raw interactions), and a target destination (JSON file under data/exports/). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_memory or recall, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage — you would call this when you want a JSON export of memory data — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like import_memory or get_recent_interactions. It gives clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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