list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists memories with optional filtering, but doesn't describe what a 'memory' entails, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all stored memories') and adds a useful detail ('with optional filtering by tags'). There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'memory' is, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like default ordering or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 mentions optional filtering by tags, which aligns with the 'tags' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters ('tags' and 'limit') clearly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all stored memories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_memories' by specifying 'all stored memories' rather than a search operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_memory_stats'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering by tags, but doesn't specify when to use 'list_memories' versus 'search_memories' or other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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