echopath_list_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, whether hidden/candidate memories are omitted, or permissions. An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, but the operational behavior of the listing is entirely undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently stated, though its brevity is partly the cause of the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than a deliberate compression of rich content.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an ambiguous 'both memory stores' claim, one sentence is not enough. An agent knows it lists memories but not how results are bounded, what candidates are, or how this differs from the other list tools.

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% — 'limit' and 'include_candidates' have no titles beyond their names and no descriptions. The description mentions neither; 'both memory stores' vaguely gestures at the candidate/store concept but does not explain what include_candidates changes or what limit bounds.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List learned memories') and adds a scope note ('from both memory stores'). It is understandable on its own, but it never clarifies what a 'learned memory' is versus the sibling resources (procedures, runs, sessions), nor what the two stores are.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus echopath_list_procedures, echopath_list_runs, or the get_* siblings, and no stated prerequisites. The only hint is the implied 'browse everything' framing of 'both memory stores'.

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