Lister les mémoires

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'active' memories are returned and that they are sorted by priority with pinned memories first. However, it does not explain default behavior when no filters are given, pagination, or meaning of 'active', leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences: the first defines the operation, the second gives usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return format and parameter interactions (e.g., crossProject, focus, asOf). It does not mention what a memory entry looks like, what the default limit is, or whether all memories are listed if no filters are provided. This leaves the tool incomplete for a 6-parameter 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 67%, so some parameters (limit, project) lack descriptions. The description only mentions filtering by project/theme generically and does not explain any parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 active memories for a project and/or theme, sorted by priority with pinned items first. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_verify.

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 an explicit usage context: 'à utiliser pour injecter le contexte pertinent au démarrage d'une session ou au changement de sujet.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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