list_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent with that ('Read-only'). It adds real value beyond the annotations: the result ordering ('most important first'), the exact return envelope ({ data, paging: { limit, has_more, next_offset } }), and the pagination contract for continuing. It stops short of disclosing which statuses are included by default or what happens to archived/superseded entries, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and trigger first, the disambiguation second, the return/pagination contract last. Nothing is repeated except the 'Read-only' phrase, which is a single word.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the exact return shape and paging fields, and explains how to continue paging. Combined with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including type, limit, offset, status and namespace is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent guidance ('pass next_offset back as offset') duplicates what the offset schema field already says, so it adds no new semantic detail.

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 and resource ('Page through everything you remember') plus the ordering guarantee ('most important first'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('To find something specific, use recall'). An agent can distinguish it from recall/notebook/read_diary without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations ('when the person asks what you know about them (你都记得我什么)' or 'wants to look through or tidy their memories') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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