memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool lists files (implied read-only) and differentiates between index retrieval and room listing. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error handling, but the behavior is predictable and non-destructive. The presence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details.

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 long, each carrying distinct, necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides specific usage details. No word is wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no required fields, and an output schema, the description covers the primary use cases. However, it does not specify what happens if an invalid path is given (e.g., non-existent room), and it mentions 'markdown files' specifically, which might imply only .md files are listed. These are minor gaps, but the description is mostly complete for a simple list 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add all parameter meaning. It fully explains the 'path' parameter's role: empty string retrieves the index, a room path lists files. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter semantics crystal clear.

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 the palace index or files within a room, with specific behavior for empty vs non-empty path. It distinguishes the two main use cases and uses a specific verb ('list') and resource structure ('palace index', 'room files'). This is precise and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 clear guidance on when to call without path (to retrieve INDEX.md) and when to pass a room path (to list files in that room). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like memory_search or memory_read, but the usage context is well-defined and easy to follow.

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