memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sort order, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what happens when limit truncates the result set, whether there is pagination or a default limit, or what fields each memory entry contains.

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 short sentence with zero waste, and the useful ordering detail is front-loaded ahead of the optional filter. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should do more work than one sentence. It leaves an agent unable to judge result volume, default limit, pagination, or return shape for a listing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It covers 'category' only implicitly via 'filtered by category,' and gives no meaning at all for 'limit' — no default, no truncation behavior, nothing about the 1-200 range.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List memories') plus the default ordering ('newest first') and the optional filter, which is enough to distinguish this from memory_search or memory_get. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'optionally' hints that category is a filter, but there is no statement of when to use this browse-style listing versus memory_search or memory_context, and no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling names alone.

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