working_memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering by key, automatic exclusion of expired entries, empty array when no live entries, and the structure of each entry (key, value, expires_at). Could mention read-only nature, but overall very transparent.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: main purpose, ordering/expiration, empty case, entry structure and use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 (list with one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (array), entry fields, ordering, expiration handling, and empty case. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to understand and use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the single parameter (project_path) beyond the schema description. It refers to 'current project' but that is context, not parameter detail.

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 tool lists all live transient key-value entries for the current project, ordered by key. It distinguishes from siblings like working_memory_get (specific key retrieval) and working_memory_set (storing data).

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 explicit use cases: 'Use to audit active transient state or to check whether a key exists before calling working_memory_get.' It also notes expired entries are excluded. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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