memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds filter details, default/max limit, and explains parameter behavior (e.g., 'Omit to see all accessible projects'). This adequately discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence contrast, then a bullet-free Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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's complexity (6 optional parameters, filtering) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and sibling relationship. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description compensates by explaining each parameter: entry_type (memory/doc), project (omit for all), tag, agent, confidence_min (e.g., 0.7), limit (default 50, max 500). This adds essential meaning beyond schema types and names, though some details are brief.

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 'Browse memory entries by filter' and explicitly contrasts with memory_search, differentiating 'find something relevant' from 'show me everything tagged X'. This provides a clear, specific purpose and distinguishes from siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you want to survey a topic area' and provides a direct comparison to memory_search, giving the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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