Export memory contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the payload comes back as text, it is capped by a server-side export byte limit, and segments are chained via cursor — exactly the truncation semantics an agent must know. No contradiction with annotations.

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, resource, and formats, followed by the sibling alternative and the pagination note, with no filler. It is dense — three distinct points packed into two sentences — but each 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained, and annotations handle the safety profile. Between the description and schema, formats, byte cap, and cursor continuation are all covered; only snapshot consistency across segments is left implicit.

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 every parameter (tag, limit, cursor, format, prefix) is already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates the format enum and the cursor/next_cursor relationship. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds little syntax or edge-case meaning beyond it.

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 and resource ("Read a portable snapshot of memory contents") plus the three serializations produced. It explicitly differentiates from the `list` sibling by naming it as the short-preview alternative, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives one explicit exclusion with a condition: use `list` for short previews instead. It also explains the continuation path ("pass `next_cursor` as `cursor` to continue"). It does not address when to prefer export over `get`, `recall`, or `search`, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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