List memories by date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds valuable context by naming the exact return fields (date, saving tool, id, text), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination/ordering beyond the limit parameter or behavior on empty results, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and ordering first, routing guidance second, return shape third. No filler and no redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it orders, and when to prefer the sibling search tool.

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 coverage is 100% — all three parameters carry descriptions, including the 1–200 range, the default of 50, and the ISO 8601 example for 'since'. The description only restates the date filter at a high level, so the baseline 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a project's memories'), the ordering ('reverse chronological'), and the optional date filter. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_memory by naming that sibling and the task it serves.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases ('review what was recorded recently', 'overview of a project') and an explicit when-not with the alternative: 'rather than to answer a specific question (use search_memory for that)'. Nothing is left to inference.

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