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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the notion that the result is a schema/class listing scoped to a single graph, which is mild added value rather than rich behavioral context.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is doing double duty and could be slightly clearer without adding length.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the identifier semantics and the absence of any routing guidance among the many sibling list/get tools, making the definition minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema coverage is 0% with one required parameter named 'memory', so the description must carry the load and does partially: it says the value is a graph slug obtained from list_my_memories. However, this contradicts the schema's naming ('memory' vs 'slug'/'graph'), leaving the identifier's exact form somewhat ambiguous.

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: listing the classes (schema) within a graph. It also ties itself to the ecosystem by pointing at list_my_memories as the source of the graph identifier, which helps distinguish it from siblings like list_objects. It stops short of explicitly contrasting its scope with those siblings.

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 parenthetical reveals a prerequisite (obtain the slug via list_my_memories), which is useful context for invocation. There is no explicit statement of when this tool should be chosen over list_objects or get_object, nor any exclusion guidance.

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