list_memories

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It hints that results include versions and ownership and are "permitted" (implying authorization filtering), but never says whether listing is read-only, how pagination behaves by default, or what an empty/unauthorized result looks like.

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?

A single clause with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

For a four-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without the return shapes, default filtering behavior, or space scoping needed to call this correctly in a family of eight memory-listing/search siblings.

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 only 50%: limit and offset are documented in the schema, while space_id and include_archived have no description anywhere. The description does not compensate — it never mentions scoping by space or whether archived memories are excluded by default, which are exactly the choices an agent needs to make.

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?

"List" gives a clear verb, but the resource is described generically as "records" rather than memories, and the phrase "permitted records with versions and ownership" is ambiguous about what is actually returned. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like search_memories, prefetch_memories, or list_memory_revisions, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this versus search_memories, prefetch_memories, or list_categories — all of which return related data. There is no statement of prerequisites, scope, or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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