mem_policy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'List' implying read-only, but fails to disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the list reflects current state exclusively. With zero annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of 7 words—highly concise. However, conciseness is slightly undermined by missing critical details (e.g., return format) that could be added without significant verbosity.

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 27 sibling tools, the description does not sufficiently equip an agent to select this tool. It omits output schema details, does not explain what a 'memory policy' is, and lacks context on how the results integrate with other tools like mem_policy_add or mem_policy_validate.

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?

The single parameter `project_key` has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the phrase 'for one project,' which contextualizes the parameter as a project identifier, but does not specify its format, constraints, or examples. This adds little beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 memory policies, specifying both active and inactive categories and targeting a single project. This provides a clear verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from other list tools like mem_inheritance_list, though it could further clarify what constitutes a 'policy'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as mem_policy_add or mem_policy_remove. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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