list_memory_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it lists projects with status, is used for discovery, and includes session management guidance. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, error conditions, or whether the list is paginated.

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 clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, post-call instructions, returns, example). It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Shows all Basic Memory projects...' slightly repeats the first sentence), but overall it's efficient and informative.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values, though it mentions 'Formatted list of projects with session management guidance,' which adds helpful context. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or performance details.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document.

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's purpose: 'List all available projects with their status' and 'Shows all Basic Memory projects that are available for MCP operations.' It specifies the verb (list/show) and resource (projects), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'search_notes' that might also list resources.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'At conversation start when project is unknown,' 'When user asks about available projects,' and 'Before any operation requiring a project.' It also includes post-call instructions ('Ask user which project to use,' 'Remember their choice for the session'), which effectively guides usage context.

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