List Memories

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: ordering is approximate by storage volume, not a strict timestamp sort; it falls back to a full scan when the latest volume is empty; and recent=False scans the entire keyspace. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, alternative tools are named immediately, and the Args section is compact and scannable. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

For a read-only listing tool, this is largely complete: it explains behavior, defaults, return contents ('up to limit records with their keys'), and edge cases like fallback scanning. It falls just short of full completeness because the scope parameter is omitted and there is no output schema to fill in return-structure details.

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 description richly documents keyspace, limit, and recent with defaults and behavioral nuances. However, the input schema has a fourth parameter, scope, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. Since the schema provides no descriptions, this missing parameter is a concrete gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse stored memories — enumerate what is remembered, not search by meaning.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with montycat_semantic_search and montycat_recall, making its distinct purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use this tool ('Use this to review or list memory') and names the alternatives for other use cases: montycat_semantic_search for meaning-based recall and montycat_recall for exact lookups. This is ideal routing guidance.

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