memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no contradiction. It adds useful context about filtering capabilities but does not detail authorization, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Still, with strong annotations, the description is sufficient.

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?

Very concise: a short intro, a clear usage differentiation sentence, and a bulleted argument list. No filler, every sentence serves a purpose. Well-structured for easy parsing.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, full schema coverage, output schema present, and good annotations, the description covers the necessary context: filter semantics, usage pattern, and sibling relationship. Could mention return format briefly, but output schema covers that.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are complete. The description provides minor additional examples (e.g., '0.7 to skip decayed entries' for confidence_min), but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'browse', the resource 'memory entries', and the filter mechanism. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool memory_search by contrasting 'search for relevance' vs 'list by tag or author'.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you want to survey a topic area.' and directly contrasts with memory_search, telling the agent exactly when to use list instead of search.

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