Memphora

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing memories but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter), sorting order, whether it returns all fields or a summary, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality ('List all stored memories for the user'), and the second sentence adds practical guidance. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., format, fields), behavioral aspects like pagination or sorting, or how it interacts with siblings. For a tool that lists user data, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly without relying on trial and error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter well-documented in the schema itself (including type, description, and default). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all stored memories for the user'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than deleting, extracting, searching, or storing memories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'memphora_search' which might also list memories but with filtering.

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 implies usage by stating 'Use this to see what information has been remembered,' which suggests it's for viewing stored memories. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memphora_search' (which might list with filters) or 'memphora_extract_conversation' (which might list conversation-specific memories). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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