list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and scoping, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or empty state behavior. The behavior is adequately described for basic usage but not fully transparent.

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 a line with type definitions. Every sentence is efficient and front-loaded, providing key information without 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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain page, page_size, and project_id. The output schema exists but is not leveraged to describe return values. The tool is simple, but the description still has gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the memory_type parameter values and scoping. The other three parameters (page, page_size, project_id) are undocumented, relying solely on schema defaults. This is insufficient for agents to understand parameter usage without additional context.

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 it paginates through local EverOS memories by type, using the verb 'paginate'. It specifies memory types and their scoping, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like search_memory (search) and remember (create). However, it could be more explicit about the listing action.

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 provides explicit guidance on memory types and their scoping (user vs. agent), helping the agent choose the appropriate type. It does not include when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear for a pagination tool.

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