mnemosyne_resonance_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: there is no status filter, results are capped at 30 candidates, and an empty result is 'written in words' rather than returned as an empty array. It also explains what each entry carries (id, last phase, minutes since moved, memory id), which is valuable context given there is no output 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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scoping ('List the resonances recorded in the default vault'), then adds concise, meaningful details about result contents, limits, and empty behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the sibling-routing guidance is compactly placed at the end without padding.

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?

The description is complete for a parameterless read-only list tool: it explains the domain concept, default scope, result fields, candidate limit, empty-result representation, and how to follow up via sibling tools. With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of telling an agent what will happen and what it will receive, and it does so thoroughly.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The description instead uses the parameter-free space to clarify the result shape and domain concept, which is appropriate for a no-argument list tool. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the resonances recorded in the default vault.' It defines the domain term ('A resonance is a workspace that tracks one ongoing project') and distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to mnemosyne_position_get for full detail and mnemosyne_position_update for writing. This is precise and clearly separates it from related tools.

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 explicitly says there is no status filter, so the tool returns every resonance the scan matched, up to 30 candidates. It also names alternatives for adjacent use cases: 'Read one in full with mnemosyne_position_get, or write a new one with mnemosyne_position_update.' This gives an agent clear guidance on when to use this list tool versus its siblings.

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