mnemosyne_agent_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers exceptionally: it discloses the read-only nature (reads transcripts, returns metadata only), the cross-harness scope, the critical caveat that crashed and idle agents are indistinguishable so it reports 'last SEEN' and the agent must conclude, and the OS-closed compatibility. The crash-vs-idle warning is exactly the behavioral nuance that prevents an agent from drawing false conclusions.

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 long but every sentence carries unique value: purpose, scope, return content, usage timing, and a critical semantic caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the behavioral warning earns its place; only minor tightening would be possible without losing 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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it enumerates the returned metadata fields, explains the scope, provides the interpretation caveat, and gives usage context. For a moderate-complexity read-only list tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema descriptions themselves are excellent (e.g., explaining why limit is per-harness rather than merged).

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 precise action (list coding-agent sessions), a specific source (transcripts on disk), and a scope (ALL harnesses, not just its own). It enumerates the exact metadata returned, making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from related agent tools like mnemosyne_agent_collisions and mnemosyne_agent_files.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it before you touch shared state') and explains how to interpret results. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but for a list/read tool with 23 siblings of clearly different purposes, the contextual instruction is strong enough.

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