memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait - that only 'readable' entries are returned, implying access filtering - but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result size, or whether the caller's own permissions gate the list. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping keys appear before any other detail. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 not be explained here. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the owner-null behavior and any permission/scope rules; instead it leaves the most consequential parameter ambiguous.

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%, and both parameters are at least named in the description, so it partially compensates. However, owner defaults to null and the description never explains what a null owner means (all owners? caller's own entries?), which is the key semantic gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 gives a clear verb ('List') plus resource ('memory entries') with a scope qualifier ('readable') and scoping keys (owner, room_id). It distinguishes itself functionally from memory_get (single retrieval) and memory_delete, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'readable' hints that permission filtering applies and that this is the enumeration counterpart to memory_get. There is no statement of when to prefer this over memory_get or what happens when owner is omitted, so the agent must infer the routing.

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