list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a listing operation returning specific fields, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether 'all' means no filtering, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'List all stored transcriptions' states purpose, followed by a practical use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and when to use it. It could potentially mention how it relates to list_files or whether the markdown paths are local paths, but for its simple complexity, the description 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It clarifies what the returned fields are, providing some semantic context despite the absence of parameters.

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') and a clear resource ('all stored transcriptions') with the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on transcription metadata and markdown file paths, which is distinct from search-oriented tools like search_memory or list_files.

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 'Useful for browsing what has already been transcribed' clearly indicates a primary use case. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple listing tool.

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