list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a safe read-only operation, and the optional filters are described. However, it omits details such as ordering, pagination, exact vs. partial matching, and whether all memory fields are returned, which leaves some behavioral 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear structured format for arguments. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It does not explain return shape or potential limits, but the output schema presumably covers the return structure, and the tool's simplicity means these omissions are not critical.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description effectively compensates by explaining that 'project' filters by project name and 'category' filters by the listed categories (architecture, bugfix, config, pattern, context, reference, note). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, which only defines types and defaults. It could go further by clarifying filter matching rules, but it is already valuable.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'memories in the Brain', and by stating 'all memories' it distinguishes itself from related tools like get_memory or related_memories. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage when you need to list memories with optional filters, but it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over siblings like recall, related_memories, or get_memory. No exclusion criteria or alternative names are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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