agentmem

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 mentions listing and optional filtering but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are ordered, pagination details (despite a 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. The description is too minimal for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List memories') and adds necessary qualification ('optionally filtered by type'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of memory management with 12 sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters (one with undocumented semantics), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the broader context, what 'memories' represent, how results are structured, or behavioral constraints. For a list operation in a rich ecosystem, this leaves too many gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally filtered by type', which corresponds to the 'type' parameter with its enum values, adding useful context. However, it completely ignores the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose undocumented. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the schema coverage gap.

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 'memories', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_memory' by focusing on listing rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The optional filtering by type adds specificity beyond a basic list operation.

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 like 'search_memory', 'recall_memory', or 'memory_health'. It mentions optional filtering by type but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what happens without it. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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