list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature ('Read-only; does not modify any data'), ordering (newest first), and return fields. It does not cover potential pagination beyond the limit parameter or error handling, but overall provides solid transparency.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage guidance, behavior, return format, and ordering. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how and when to use the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not add much. It reinforces the ordering ('Newest memories are returned first regardless of limit') and lists return fields, which is helpful but not essential. The description does not significantly deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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', the resource 'memories', and the key distinction from sibling 'search_memory' by noting it does not require a query. It specifies the ordering (newest first) and return fields, 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 explicitly states when to use: 'to browse what has been stored, audit memory contents, or check memory counts per category or project'. It also contrasts with 'search_memory' (requires a query). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools beyond the mention of search_memory.

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