List memories

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no annotations contradicted. The description adds the useful project-scoping constraint and the cleanup intent behind stale_only, but says nothing about return format or ordering, so it is a modest addition over the annotation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary behavior and appending the optional filters. It wastes no words, though the parenthetical '(for cleanup)' is the only place it earns extra meaning.

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 should ideally say what a listed memory contains and in what order they return, which it omits. Combined with no differentiation from the recall sibling, the definition is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does name both optional filters ('only one kind', 'only stale ones') and gives stale_only a purpose ('for cleanup'). The enum for kind supplies the concrete values, leaving only small gaps such as the exact meaning of 'stale'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all memories') plus a scope ('for this project'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'recall', leaving an agent to infer which listing/retrieval tool to pick.

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?

It offers an implied usage context by noting that 'stale ones (for cleanup)' exists, which hints at the cleanup workflow. But it never states when to prefer this over recall, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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