list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It usefully discloses read-only listing, auto-detection, pagination default, run_id filtering, and creation-date sorting. However, it omits sort direction, behavior when both user_id and agent_id are provided, and the meaning of the 'verbose' flag.

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 organized: a plain-language first sentence, scannable OPTIONAL bullets for parameters, and a final returns line with ordering information. Every line adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in prose. It covers scope, filters, pagination defaults, and ordering. Minor gaps remain around 'verbose' semantics and user_id/agent_id exclusivity, but the tool is still actionable.

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 for the bare schema. It adds meaningful semantics for user_id/agent_id auto-detection, run_id filtering, and page_size default. The only parameter left completely unexplained is 'verbose', which keeps this from a perfect score.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('memories'), and scope ('for a user or agent with pagination'), and closes with a concrete result statement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_memories or get_recent_memories, 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?

The description gives clear usage context: list all memories for a user/agent, with optional filters and auto-detection of the current user when no scope is provided. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative tool, but the intended scenario is well implied.

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