memory_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' while adding real behavioral context: archived/superseded memories are filtered out and the payload can be large. It goes beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about size limits, auth requirements, or truncation risk.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the exclusion rule, then the alternative routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return ('one JSON payload' of content plus metadata) and does so, while also covering filtering behavior and where to go for smaller/paged reads. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with the type enum, format enum, and namespace fallback behavior all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Export the namespace's active memories ... as one JSON payload') and immediately bounds scope by excluding archived and superseded memories. An agent can distinguish this bulk dump from memory_list/memory_get without opening a 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 a use context ('for backup or migration') and names alternatives with an explicit condition: 'The result can be large; use memory_list to page or memory_search to look things up.' It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., don't use for single-record retrieval), but the routing intent is clear.

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