list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states the operation is filtering and ordering only, with no embedding-based scoring, which is non-obvious and valuable. The read-only nature is implied by 'Enumerate' and 'browse', though not explicitly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by useful usage context and an important behavioral qualifier. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the input schema fully documents all parameters, the description provides the missing contextual pieces: when to use it, how it differs from search, and that it performs no semantic scoring. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including defaults and semantics for tags, limit, order, and offset. The description adds high-level context about tag filtering, ordering, and pagination, but does not need to repeat schema details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate memories with tag filtering, ordering, and pagination.' It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling search_memory by noting this is not a search query path and that no embedding model or scoring is used.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: auditing memories, paginating through tag categories, and viewing memories chronologically. It also implies the alternative (semantic search) by saying no embedding model or scoring is used, though it does not explicitly name search_memory as the alternative.

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