memory_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose ordering ('newest first') and pagination behavior ('follow nextOffset for more'). It does not state read-only safety, permission requirements, or what a session record contains, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the caveats follow in priority order.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, it covers ordering, the project-scoping rule, and how to continue paging. It stops short of describing what a session entry is or any access preconditions.

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 67%, so several parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the '*' semantics for project (which the schema also covers) and adds pagination direction via nextOffset, but says nothing about limit, offset, sessionId, or includeExcluded 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 ('List recent sessions'), plus scope ('in an explicit project') and ordering ('newest first'). It does not name which sibling to use instead, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 a conditional rule for the wildcard ('use "*" only for deliberate cross-project reads') and a pagination cue, which is real guidance. However, it never addresses when to prefer this tool over siblings like memory_recall, memory_timeline, or memory_smart_search, so the routing guidance is partial.

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