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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'optional filtering' and 'browse across sessions', it doesn't address key aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (implied by the 'limit' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'memory' in this context. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context without redundancy or fluff.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on filtering mechanics, behavioral traits, and parameter specifics. For a tool with one parameter and output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify what filtering options exist or how they work. The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description doesn't explain what 'limit' controls or its default value. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more for parameter semantics but only adds vague context about filtering.

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 saved memories with optional filtering' specifies the verb (list) and resource (memories), and 'browse what Tessera has remembered across sessions' adds helpful context about scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall', 'deep_recall', or 'unified_search', which may also involve memory retrieval.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Use to browse what Tessera has remembered across sessions', suggesting this is for general browsing rather than targeted recall. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'search_by_tag', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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