memory_list_entries

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It omits details about pagination, ordering, filtering, rate limits, authentication, or what happens when no entries exist. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 extremely concise (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks necessary informative content to guide the agent, making it insufficiently structured for practical use.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no required) and presence of an output schema, a minimal description should still explain the return format or behavior. The current description does not provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's output or invocation boundaries.

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 description does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its effect (default 50). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which is a critical gap.

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 'List structured memory entries' uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating from sibling tools like memory_list_events, memory_list_identity, and memory_list_skills. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'structured memory entry,' slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No statements about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_list_events or memory_query) are provided. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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