memory_list_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like filtering, pagination, and sorting, and mentions the return format as a dictionary with list and pagination info. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-heavy context with siblings like memory_store_tool.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose and usage context, followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more seamlessly, though the structure is logical and efficient.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or error cases, which are important in a server with mutation tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'limit: Maximum number of results (default: 100, max: 1000)', 'order_by: Field to sort by (default: 'created_at', options: ...)'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for all 6 parameters.

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 as 'List memories with filtering and pagination' and 'Browse memories in the system with optional filters and pagination,' which specifies the verb (list/browse) and resource (memories). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_store_tool (store) and memory_forget_tool (forget), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like memory_recall_tool or memory_context_tool, which might also involve retrieving memories.

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 clear context for usage with 'Useful for auditing, exploring, or debugging memory contents,' which helps an agent understand when to apply this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, such as comparing to memory_recall_tool for specific recall vs. general listing, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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