memory_list

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

No annotations provided, but description adds significant behavioral context: data source origin, default filtering (valid entries), grouping by kind order, and time ordering. Discloses read-only nature implicitly.

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 sentences in English followed by Chinese explanation, both concise and informative. Front-loads core purpose without unnecessary words.

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 output schema existence, description fully covers purpose, behavior (grouping, ordering, filtering), and data source. Provides enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds context about default behavior (valid entries) and grouping, but does not significantly enhance individual parameter semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists direction-layer memories, valid by default, grouped by kind, and specifies scope (global/user/project) and ordering. Distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_add or memory_search.

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?

States the tool is used to review 'what the agent will inherit', providing clear usage context. While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, the purpose is well-defined.

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