list_memories

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only behavior. The description adds beyond annotations by noting governance limits and silently reduced limits, which is valuable. However, it does not explain how pagination works (e.g., cursor continuation) or any rate limits, but given strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, object, and constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description is largely complete for a listing operation. It could mention whether results are sorted or the exact content of 'metadata', but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds a brief summary of pagination and governance, which slightly augments the schema by framing the behavior, but does not add new semantic detail 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 tool lists memory metadata with pagination and governance limits. However, while it distinguishes from most siblings that deal with memory storage or recall, it could be more specific about what 'memory metadata' includes to fully differentiate from other list-like tools.

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 implicitly suggests this is for reading metadata subject to governance, and sibling tools like 'recall_memory' and 'save_memory' indicate different use cases. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this versus other read tools like 'recall' or 'search', nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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