CPersona

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

The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds contextual information that the listing is chronological ('recent') and intended for 'dashboard display,' which implies default sorting by recency. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior, default sort order, or what happens when no memories exist.

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, efficient sentence of nine words. The parenthetical '(for dashboard display)' earns its place by providing context without cluttering. Information is front-loaded with the action verb 'List'.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, read-only operation, 100% schema coverage) and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values (no output schema), but could have clarified the sorting behavior (implied by 'recent' but not explicit).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents both 'agent_id' (including the 'empty for all agents' detail) and 'limit'. The description mentions 'for an agent' which aligns with the agent_id parameter but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a clear verb ('List'), resource ('memories'), and scope ('recent,' 'for an agent'). The parenthetical '(for dashboard display)' adds useful context about the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'recall' tool, which likely performs semantic search rather than chronological listing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' (semantic retrieval), 'export_memories' (bulk export), or 'list_episodes'. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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