List agent-visible tacit memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantive traits: only promoted, consented, in-review-date memory appears; listing records nothing; and a listed item can still be withheld at retrieval based on situation, role, or risk class. That last point is a non-obvious behavioral caveat an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Three sentences, each doing work, with the core purpose front-loaded before the routing advice and the withholding caveat. Slightly dense and could trim the parenthetical enumeration, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated; the description still characterizes what each item carries (conditions of applicability and review date) and explains the inclusion filter. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter vocabulary for the description to elaborate on, and it correctly abstains from inventing filtering syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the tacit memory agents may receive in this workspace') and sharpens scope with 'as metadata ... without the guidance text'. It clearly delineates itself from the sibling retrieve_guidance, which returns the guidance itself.

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?

Explicit when-to-use is given: 'see which situations memory covers and which context fields to give retrieve_guidance', with the alternative and its outcome named. No inference is required to route between list_tacit_memory and retrieve_guidance.

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