list_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns memories sorted by most recently created, and mentions optional filtering by type. However, it doesn't cover pagination (though 'limit' parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'memories' contain structurally. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: first sentence states core functionality, second adds sorting detail, third provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, sorting, filtering, and usage scenarios. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better explain what a 'memory' contains or error conditions, though not strictly required for basic functionality.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (type with enum values, limit with default). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by type' and implying sorting, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all memories, optionally filtered by type' specifies the verb (list) and resource (memories) with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_memory' by emphasizing browsing/auditing vs. targeted search, though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'recall_memory' (which might retrieve specific memories) or 'memory_health' (which could list system status).

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 clear usage context: 'Use to browse what the memory system knows about a topic or to audit stored rules' gives practical scenarios. It implies this is for broad listing vs. alternatives like 'search_memory' for targeted queries, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the 11 siblings.

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