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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add useful context beyond the annotations: that results span both private and team scopes, that only paths (not file contents) are returned, and that ordering is by path. Pagination and volume behavior are not mentioned, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the scope and ordering qualifiers. Every clause ('private and team', 'sorted by path') carries information the agent can act on.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what comes back (paths, both scopes, path-sorted) and the annotations cover safety. What is missing is only the comparative guidance against sibling memory tools (memory_tree, memory_search), which keeps it below a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing about argument meaning the description could usefully add. The schema's empty object with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory and the description does not mislead about any inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('paths of every memory file'), plus the scope ('this account, private and team') and ordering ('sorted by path'), which lets an agent picture the output. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like memory_tree or memory_search, leaving the agent to infer that those are for structured/recursive or filtered views.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'every memory file in this account, private and team' suggests this is the broad, unfiltered inventory, which lets an agent guess it should be used before drilling into memory_read or memory_tree. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when-not to use it, and no named alternative such as memory_search for filtered lookups.

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