list_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds one behavioral detail about response including 'ts' when feedback mode is enabled, but fails to explain core behavior such as scope determination (how 'in scope' is resolved), filtering logic, pagination, or side effects. The lack of any side-effect or safety mention is a gap.

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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a conditional behavioral note. No redundant or extraneous text. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, the description does not clarify what 'in scope' means, how the optional filter parameters (user_id, agent_id, memory_type) influence the result, or what the default behavior is (e.g., returning all memories if no filters set). This leaves the tool partially under-described for effective use.

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% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (top_k, user_id, agent_id, memory_type). There is no compensation for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of how these parameters affect the tool's behavior.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'memories', but 'in scope' is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like search_memories. The negative hint 'Not a substitute for search_memories' implies a distinction but does not specify what list_memories actually does differently.

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 only a single negative hint about not substituting search_memories, without any positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_memory_by_id or update_memory. No when-not or alternative descriptions are given.

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