memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the listing behavior and optional filtering, which covers basic functionality. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no keys exist (e.g., returns empty list). The description is adequate but minimal for a read-only tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that front-loads the main action ('Lista todas las claves almacenadas') and adds the optional filter detail. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool with one parameter.

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 (1 optional parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage, and the output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as response format or error cases, to be fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'prefix' with its default and purpose. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the filter in Spanish ('filtro opcional por prefijo'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. With 0 required parameters, the baseline is 4, as the tool is simple and the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('todas las claves almacenadas'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_get (retrieve specific key) and memory_set (store key) by focusing on listing all keys. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with memory_clear or memory_delete, which are destructive operations.

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 through the optional prefix filter, suggesting it's for browsing keys, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that memory_get is for retrieving a specific key's value, or that this tool is for discovery purposes. The guidance is functional but not comparative.

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