list_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful defaults (only current valid facts) and an important exclusion (no full-text matching). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure is, how include_expired changes behavior, or any pagination/sorting behavior—leaving a moderate transparency 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?

The description is a single compact Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the distinguishing non-full-text qualifier and the default-behavior note. Every clause earns its place, and there is no 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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It covers the primary purpose and one default behavior, but leaves parameter meanings, return format, and operational semantics largely unexplained, making it insufficient for correct invocation in many cases.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (tag, kind, limit, scope, subject, include_expired). The only implicit hint is that the default filter for current valid facts relates to include_expired. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 lists memories by conditions, specifies that it is structured/readable/auditable, and explicitly notes that it does not do full-text matching—which distinguishes it from the sibling search_memory. The verb 'list' and resource 'memories' make the operation unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for structured filtering, not full-text search, and it defaults to returning only currently valid facts. It implies a division of labor with the search_memory sibling but does not explicitly name the alternative or state hard exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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