List memories

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds the query-free browse behavior, but does not disclose ordering, default limit, whether superseded memories appear by default, or the shape of returned results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and immediately followed by use cases. No filler; every phrase contributes to selection or invocation.

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 read-only list tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description makes the basic call clear. However, it omits how include_superseded works, whether results are paginated or ordered, and what a returned memory entry looks like, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 20%, with only 'project' documented. The description merely names project/kind/tags and leaves 'include_superseded' and 'limit' unexplained; 'include_superseded' in particular is an important filter whose default behavior is unclear, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action (Browse/List) and resource (memories), names three filter dimensions, and distinguishes itself from query-based retrieval by saying 'without a query.' It does not explicitly name memory_search as the alternative, so it stops short of 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?

Gives two concrete use cases: auditing stored memories and loading a project's context at session start. It also implies the alternative path by contrasting with query-based browsing, though no explicit when-not or prerequisite is stated.

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