memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: default returns cheap summaries, with_bodies inlines full bodies (potentially costly), and the context bloat risk is highlighted. It does not explicitly state read-only status or error handling, but the warnings are valuable.

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 four sentences, all information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers default behavior, the with_bodies trade-off, and filtering. No wasted words.

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?

The description adds essential context about default vs with_bodies return shapes and the risk of pulling all memories, which is helpful even with an output schema present. It doesn't mention pagination or response size limits, but for a small-store tool the guidance is adequate.

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 provides only types and defaults with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description enriches both parameters: with_bodies is explained with trade-offs (avoids multiple round trips vs context bloat) and scopes is described as a filter. This exceeds the schema's information substantially.

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 clearly states the tool lists active memories with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by describing the default one-line summary format, which implies a triage-oriented list operation, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like memory_show or memory_search.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use with_bodies and warns against casual use due to context bloat. It also advises using scopes for subset filtering. While it doesn't directly reference alternatives like memory_search, it provides clear situational usage guidance for all parameters.

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