export_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope ('full memory graph') and output format, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, auth requirements, or behavior beyond the annotation baseline, so it adds moderate value.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. It contains no redundant phrases and every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return format is covered structurally), the description leaves the optional subject_id parameter unexplained and provides no guidance on when to use this tool over get_graph. For a simple tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter subject_id, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The parameter is optional with a default, but the agent has no explanation of what it controls (e.g., which memory subject to export). The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('the full memory graph'), and the output format ('JSON memory passport'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_graph, which likely retrieves a graph in a different manner, and from add/search/forget tools that mutate memory.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is for a complete export, but no guidance is given about when to choose it over get_graph or other memory tools.

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