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 behavioral burden. It only implies read-only semantics via 'List' and says nothing about result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, whether results are truncated, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and all filter dimensions front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a list tool, though it leaves little room for the usage context an agent would want.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain return shape, ordering, and the limit parameter. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at result semantics.

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 names three of four parameters (type, tag, min_importance) but omits 'limit', its default of 100 and cap of 500, and the enum's seven memory types, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List memories') and names the three filter dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from point-access siblings like memory_get or memory_recall. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

'optionally filtered' implies when the filters apply, and enumerating the filter dimensions gives an implicit usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus memory_recall, memory_get, or memory_context, and no exclusions or ordering guidance.

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