list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the default behavioral trait that only current facts are returned unless include_history is true, but it does not mention read-only status, permissions, pagination, or other operational traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core resource and the key default scope caveat.

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 tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. Still, it leaves gaps around user_id semantics and when to choose this tool versus recall, which are relevant given the sibling-tool context and zero schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of include_history and the default current-facts behavior, but it does not explain user_id beyond the phrase 'about a user,' leaving the identifier semantics only partially covered.

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 that the tool returns everything remembered about a user, with a default current-facts-only scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like recall, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource being listed.

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 when to use the tool by saying it returns everything remembered about a user, and it explains that history is included only when include_history is true. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as recall or list_entities.

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