list_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns current values per key and is meant for pre-save checks, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the list is sorted, paginated, or limited to a single farm scope beyond the farm_id parameter.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a natural second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and scope. It could mention what happens when no farm_id is provided (e.g., uses default farm), but the schema already notes the default, so the description is nearly complete.

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 100% (farm_id is described as optional if a default is set), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds the context that the list is farm-scoped, but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('what the assistant currently remembers about this farm'), and clarifies it returns the current value per key. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_records and list_groups by focusing on assistant memory, not farm data records.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before saving a memory to avoid duplicate or conflicting keys,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also implies the alternative context (saving/updating memories) without needing to name a sibling, which is sufficient given the sibling list contains update_record and delete_record.

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