memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and filtering options but does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the store does not exist. The term 'scope' is ambiguous.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and ordering. Every word is purposeful; no 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?

Given 8 parameters (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return format, pagination (limit default 20), and error conditions. It is adequate but not fully 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying 'newest first' ordering and grouping 'agentId', 'threadId', 'namespace', 'instanceId' under 'scope filters', which is not in the schema. This aids agent understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('memories'), ordering ('newest first'), and optional filters. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory_get or memory_recall.

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 implies the use case (listing memories) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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