List memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and pagination but does not state default behavior for the boolean include flags (e.g., whether expired/archived are included by default), ordering, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). This is a significant gap for a list tool.

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 that front-loads the primary action and immediately covers filtering and pagination. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain default filter behavior, response format, or how it differs from sibling list-like tools (memory_search, memory_history). An agent would need to infer too much to call it 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 description coverage is only 38% (3 of 8 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning for scope/type and offset/limit (matching the text), but completely omits explanation for includeFuture, includeExpired, includeQuarantined, and only partially covers includeArchived (which the schema already describes). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('stored memories'), and mentions filtering and pagination. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like memory_search or memory_get to differentiate itself.

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 when to use it (listing memories with optional filters) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over memory_search, memory_history, or memory_get. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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