list_memories

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the reference to read_memory clarifies that list returns memory references rather than content. It could mention scope or return format, but the basic behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary function, and the second sentence adds useful complementary guidance without redundancy or waste.

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?

For a simple, parameterless enumeration tool, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and the logical next step (reading a chosen memory). The presence of an output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description doesn't mislead or omit anything about inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('memories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_memory by explicitly indicating that read_memory is for reading the content of a memory, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context by saying 'Any memory can be read using the read_memory tool,' implying list_memories is for discovery/enumeration and read_memory is for retrieving content. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the complementary reference gives enough guidance for tool selection.

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