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. It discloses that the tool returns memory body, source, creation time, and expiration status, and that it orders reverse chronologically with an option to filter unexpired memories. While it doesn't mention mutability or idempotency, listing tools are inherently read-only; still, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, each with a clear purpose: first defines the tool, second gives use cases, third distinguishes from alternatives, fourth lists return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists return fields. It explains ordering and filtering. However, it doesn't describe pagination or the exact behavior of 'limit' (e.g., max items), nor how 'source' filter interacts with the data. Still, it's fairly complete for a simple listing tool.

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% (limit and unexpired_only have descriptions). The tool description doesn't add extra meaning for parameters beyond what's in the schema, except it mentions 'expiration status' which relates to unexpired_only. It doesn't clarify how 'source' filter works but the enum values are self-explanatory. Adequate but doesn't significantly improve on 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 recent short-term memories in reverse chronological order, likening it to a daily log or activity feed. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a time-ordered listing tool, not a semantic search tool (search_memories) or long-term retrieval (recall).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to review recent captures, check for duplicates before inserting, or browse recent activity. Also explicitly says when not to use and provides alternatives: 'not a search tool' – use search_memories for semantic search, use recall for long-term knowledge retrieval.

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