mnemonic_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Returns paginated results with metadata'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention read-only nature, any auth requirements, or how pagination cursors/offsets work—though the output schema may cover some of this.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then key usage guidance and return behavior. No redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with a nested param schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is appropriately sized. It covers purpose, browse-vs-search distinction, and pagination metadata, which together are sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, status, sort_by) having its own description. The description adds only a high-level mention of 'optional filtering and sorting,' which does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 opens with 'List all memories with optional filtering and sorting', which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling search tool by stating it is for browsing rather than searching.

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 frames usage: 'Use this for browsing memories rather than searching.' This gives a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signal, directly contrasting with the sibling mnemonic_search tool.

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