list_shared_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (list) and default summaries, but lacks explicit statements about non-destructive nature, error handling, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences plus an Args section, all front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or extraneous 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 low complexity (1 parameter, simple list), the description covers the main functionality and default behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, it omits handling of missing namespaces or empty results, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the namespace parameter's meaning and default behavior. It adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting namespace shows all namespaces with summaries, which is not in the schema.

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 memories saved across sessions in shared namespaces, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_memories by defaulting to showing all namespaces when namespace is omitted, making its unique behavior explicit.

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 explains the default behavior when namespace is omitted, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memories, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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