memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered newest first and the scope implicitly includes global memories. It does not mention pagination or what happens when no scope is supplied.

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 short sentences plus a fragment, with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. The 'status: active | provisional' fragment is telegraphic rather than a clean sentence, but it earns its space by documenting an undocumented enum-like parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a 4-parameter tool: the meaning of 'kind', the limit/pagination behavior, and any routing guidance among the seven sibling memory tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains 'scope' (includes global) and 'status' (active | provisional), but 'kind' and 'limit' are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List memories'), scopes it ('of a scope (plus global)'), and specifies ordering ('newest first'), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like memory_recall or memory_get, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

Gives one explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks what you remember.' That is clear context, but there are no exclusions or pointers to alternatives, and it overlaps conceptually with memory_recall and memory_get without explaining which to pick.

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