List memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are previews (not full bodies), that full:true is costly, and that brief offers staleness-checking (implying memory_list does not). It doesn't state the response shape or pagination behavior explicitly, but enough context is given.

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, front-loaded with the most critical info (what the tool returns and how to expand). Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the preview fields, ordering, the full:true alternative, and points to brief for staleness-checked previews. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the response container (e.g., array), but this isn't critical given the preview description.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (full and limit), including costs and defaults. The description only adds a brief mention of full:true behavior, not significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the action (list saved facts), the ordering (newest-first), and the format (previews with id, date, tags, opening clause). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_get and brief by specifying what it does NOT do (expand full bodies, staleness-checking).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use memory_get to expand specific ids, use full:true to dump everything, and prefer brief as the opener because it gives same previews but with staleness-checking. This makes when-to-use vs alternatives very clear.

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