List Sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool enumerates all named sections, which is self-evidently a read-only operation. It does not describe whether empty or unnamed sections are included, but the risk of misunderstanding is low given the simplicity of the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. The usage guidance is packed into the second sentence without 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, has no parameters, and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, which covers the essential context. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format, but for a list-all-sections tool the return is reasonably inferable.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; there is nothing else the description needs to add.

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 ('all named sections in memory'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings that read, write, or search memory content. The title reinforces the purpose without being vague.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this when you're unsure where info might be stored.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_memory or read_memory, but the stated context is sufficient for an agent to recognize when this tool is the right starting point.

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