List memories

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the user_id "events" special case, which is not obvious from the schema alone and enhances understanding of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero fluff. The special-case instruction is concise and useful.

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?

The tool is a read-only list operation with an output schema and clear annotations. The description covers the key nuance (events special value) and is adequately complete for a list tool, though it could mention sorting or pagination behavior that may be relevant.

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%, so parameters are well documented. The description supplements this by adding meaning to the user_id parameter (the "events" special value) and indicating that output includes memory_ids, which adds semantic value beyond the schema.

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 stored memories for a user/agent/run, with a specific verb (list) and resource (memories). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_memory, update_memory, and delete_memory, and the special user_id "events" case adds further specificity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (listing memories, including the special "events" user_id for shared conversation-event memories), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use search_memories for filtered queries). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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