list_memories

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

Without annotations, the description provides moderate transparency by stating the ordering (newest first) and a display behavior (parent document tag). However, it omits details like pagination, default limit behavior beyond schema, or any side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key behaviors (order and parent document display). However, it could be more complete by briefly noting the default limit or response structure, but it is sufficient for a basic 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'limit', the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3, and the description merely repeats the schema's implication without elaboration.

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 action (list), the resource (stored memories), the order (newest first), and a display detail (parent documents with [doc×N] tag), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like search_memory which implies filtered retrieval.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memory or save_memory. The description only states what it does without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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