memory_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says a file is written but not whether an existing file at 'path' is overwritten, what permissions are needed, whether the export is atomic, or how long it takes on large stores—critical side-effect details for a write-to-disk 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions fall short.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of return value, overwrite semantics, or scope of the exported data, the definition does not give an agent enough to call this safely and predictably.

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 both 'path' and 'profile' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., whether 'profile' scoping changes the output structure or is recorded in the file), so the baseline of 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 specific verb+resource+output format: exporting memories into a JSON backup file. An agent can distinguish it from memory_recall/memory_list (read queries) by the 'backup file' outcome, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 word '备份' implies a backup scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use memory_recall for querying, memory_export only for durable copies). Usage must be inferred from the name.

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