memory_insight_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses deleted-entry exclusion, confidence-descending ordering, the limit default of 50, and the return shape {success,insights}. It omits any note on permissions or pagination beyond limit, but for a read-only list this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core read operation and scoping rules, then return behavior, then the disambiguation from alternatives. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return shape and ordering. Combined with the filter semantics and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this three-parameter, zero-required 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'exact project' match semantics that the schema's bare 'Filter by project' does not convey, plus confirmation that minConfidence acts as a threshold and limit bounds results. It goes modestly beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read existing synthesized insights') and immediately scopes it with exclusion and filter rules. It also explicitly differentiates itself from memory_reflect and memory_lesson_recall, so an agent can pick it over those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('This does not generate new insights') and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects each. It also clarifies the omitted-project behavior, leaving nothing to inference about when this tool is the right call.

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