memory_tiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this and explains how tiers are derived (access recency + frequency). It adds value beyond annotations with no contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. No redundant words; each sentence adds essential information.

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?

The description covers the main output (tier distribution, hot working set) and scope filters. With no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the result. Could mention that it's a snapshot or list, but sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema documents both parameters fully. The description mentions 'optional scope/namespace filter' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the enum and description in the schema provide.

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 shows 'MemGPT-style tier distribution (hot / recall / archival)' and 'list the hot working set'. It specifies the resource (memories) and action (show/list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_stats.

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 mentions it's read-only and has optional scope/namespace filters, giving context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide when-not guidance, which could be helpful given the many sibling tools.

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