list_facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Does not change fact records' mostly restates them. The genuinely additive disclosure is the initialization prerequisite for project/combined scope, which annotations cannot express. Default/omitted-filter behavior is also spelled out, though it duplicates the schema.

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 core purpose and the routing to 'context' are front-loaded, and most sentences carry information. Some space is spent repeating structured data ('Does not change fact records', 'Returns a facts array', default filters) that a reader already gets from annotations and schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it covers the prerequisite, the sibling alternative, and default filter behavior. The only thing not addressed is retrieval sizing or result-bound behavior for what is effectively a list operation, a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100% and two parameters are enums, so the schema already defines scope, status, and visibility values and defaults. The description's notes on omitted scope (searches both) and omitted status (active only) restate schema defaults rather than adding new syntax or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect individual memory facts') plus the dimensions being filtered (scope, lifecycle status, visibility), and it explicitly contrasts itself with the 'context' sibling for compiled prompt context. An agent can tell it apart from context, remember_fact, and purge_fact without opening any schema.

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?

It states the selecting condition for this tool ('record IDs and metadata') and names the alternative with its own condition ('use context for compiled prompt context'), which is exactly the when-vs-alternative routing an agent needs. It also names a prerequisite: project or combined scope requires initialized project memory.

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