list_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and mentions sorting behavior ('sorted by creation date'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or behavior with empty results. The input schema covers the sorting order via parameter description, keeping this at an adequate level.

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 consists of three short, focused sentences. The first sentence communicates the core purpose and output fields, the second states the read-only nature, and the third provides usage guidance. No unnecessary information is present.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (title, scope, importance score, file path) and ordering. It lacks details on pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter or error scenarios, but for a simple list tool with only one parameter, it is sufficiently 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 the description does not need to add much. The schema already describes the limit parameter in detail (default, max, sorting). The tool description does not provide additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, meriting a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('list'), identifies the resource ('pinned memory assets'), and details the output fields (title, scope, importance score, file path). It also implies the relationship to the sibling tool pin_memory, clearly distinguishing it from general list_assets.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to review high-value memories that were explicitly pinned via pin_memory, or to check if a topic already has a pinned reference.' It does not list alternative tools or contraindications, but the context is clear.

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