list_namespaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' strongly implies a safe, read-only operation, and the mention of memory counts gives some insight into output. However, it does not openly state that it has no side effects or require any auth, which is a minor gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that clearly states the action, target, and output. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what it does (list namespaces) and what it returns (counts of memories per namespace), making it complete for the agent to use correctly in most contexts.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The description's mention of 'how many memories each holds' hints at the return value, which indirectly clarifies that no filtering parameters are available.

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 a specific verb ('list') and resource ('folder-like namespaces') and adds the additional detail of memory counts, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like recall or context that retrieve memories rather than summarize namespaces.

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 clearly implies usage for enumerating namespaces, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given the simple nature of the tool, the intended usage is reasonably inferable but not explicitly documented.

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