memory_list_compact

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format (minimal fields, preview length) and deprecation status, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other side effects. Adequate for a list 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 well-structured with a deprecation warning upfront followed by a concise Args list. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be tightened slightly.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and deprecation. It lacks scope context (e.g., user/workspace) but is sufficient for a deprecated list tool.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including data types, defaults, and examples (e.g., relative date formats for date_from/date_to, tag logic), adding significant value beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 lists memories in compact format with specific fields (id, preview, tags only) and explicitly marks it as deprecated, differentiating it from the preferred sibling memory_list.

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 explicitly advises to prefer memory_list which now defaults to compact previews, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and recommending an alternative.

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