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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the soft-join on cursor_agent_id and the content of the gap report (protocol misses, undistilled sessions, blank author_label), which is real behavioral context. However it omits access/permission requirements, cost, and read-only confirmation beyond the implied 'List'.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then supports it with join semantics and the gap-report contents, plus a doc pointer. It is compact and every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is dense with unexplained jargon.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the filters, probes, and gap report. Still, for a moderately complex aggregation tool it leaves usage context and the 'limit' parameter unaddressed, so it is only minimally 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 67%: 'agent' and 'probes' are well documented in the schema, while 'limit' has no description. The description adds only marginal param meaning ('by agent'), so the schema is doing the heavy lifting — the baseline 3 for medium coverage is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resources ('recent working sessions and durable memories') and adds a behavioral nuance (soft-join with agent_runs). It is clear what it does but does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like memory_episodes_list or memory_distill_scorecard, which also surface session/digest data.

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 context is only implied: the probes param description notes 'Omit to return inventory + gap report only,' giving a conditional hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance against the many memory_* listing tools. An agent must infer the routing.

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