memory_review_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states that it lists items and the fields returned; it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or lacks side effects. While the name suggests a list operation, the description does not communicate this behavioral guarantee, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the returned fields. There is no extraneous information, and it is appropriately concise for a list operation.

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, but the description omits how to identify specific items for later resolution (e.g., an ID field) and does not mention any ordering or pagination behavior. Without an output schema, an agent may need more context to use the results with sibling tools like memory_review_resolve, which would require some reference to individual items.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are none. It provides no extra parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 uses the verb '列出' (list) with a specific resource '人工复核队列的全部待办' and enumerates the returned fields (content, reason, queue file name). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_review_resolve, which handles resolution, and memory_search, which is general search.

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 this tool is for viewing the review queue but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, such as when to use memory_review_resolve after listing. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the relationship with sibling tools.

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