memory_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('List'), which is correct. However, it omits details about required permissions, how parameters like 'scope' interact, and what happens if no cwd or project is specified, causing some ambiguity.

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it is somewhat vague. It is concise but could be more structured with better clarity without adding length.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to use parameters for filtering, what 'pinned' means, and what the response looks like, making it hard for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It hints at the use of 'cwd' and 'project' by mentioning 'project/cwd' but does not explain 'limit', 'scope' (including its enum values), or how they relate. Some meaning is added, but incompletely.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'pinned memory items', with context 'for a project/cwd, including global user memory'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search and memory_recent by focusing on 'pinned' items, but could be more specific about what 'pinned' means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_recent. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without enough context to choose correctly among siblings.

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