List All Memories

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning optional type filtering, pagination, and stats, which go beyond the schema and clarify what the call returns.

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 a single efficient sentence with the main action front-loaded and optional capabilities listed compactly. Every phrase carries useful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters and fully documented input parameters, this is a sufficient definition. The main gap is that "stats" is not explained and the response payload is not described, but the high schema/annotation coverage keeps the description reasonably 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema (type, limit, offset). The description's mention of "type filter" and "pagination" adds only general framing—it does not provide meaningful detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action ("List"), a clear resource ("all stored memories"), and the key optional capabilities (type filter, pagination, stats). It is easily distinguishable from save/get/delete/search siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the type-specific list siblings such as memory_project_list.

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 phrase "all stored memories" with an optional type filter implies this is the general listing tool, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of memory_search or the type-specific list tools. The intended usage is inferable, but not clearly stated.

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