memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'recent' but does not define recency or ordering. It omits any side effects, pagination, or result format. For a listing tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but under-specified, delivering only minimal information.

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 complexity (3 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description lacks essential details like result ordering, definition of 'recent', and pagination behavior. It is not sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only says 'optionally filtered' without describing what 'scope' and 'category' mean or how 'limit' affects results. This adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 uses the verb 'list' and resource 'memories', clearly indicating the action and target. It adds 'recent' and 'optionally filtered' which give specific scope, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_recall, which may also retrieve memories.

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 says 'optionally filtered' implying flexibility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall or memory_stats. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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