memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description's 'Browse' aligns with this. However, the description does not add further behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as potential performance implications or the bi-temporal nature of the 'as_of' parameter. The openWorldHint=false is not explained. Since the description does not contradict annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate (baseline, no added value).

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, front-loaded, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys core functionality. However, it could be slightly expanded to mention the bi-temporal or pagination behavior without losing conciseness. Still, it is well-structured and avoids fluff.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of bi-temporal filtering, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of memory objects with fields), nor the effect of 'as_of' on results. For a tool of this complexity, the description should provide more context to aid correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' adds no detail beyond the schema. For example, 'as_of' is a complex parameter but the schema already explains it. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the work.

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: 'Browse memories with filtering and pagination.' It specifies supported sorting fields and implies list retrieval, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get (single retrieval) and memory_search (likely full-text search). The verb 'browse' and resource 'memories' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for browsing and filtering memories but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it. Among 52 sibling tools, there are many memory listing/search tools, so explicit differentiation would be helpful. Without such guidance, the description is adequate but not exemplary.

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