list_remembered

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 describes a read operation ('Lists all cached context entries') but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The return fields are mentioned, which is good, but safety traits are implicit.

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 consists of three concise sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the purpose, and the third lists return fields. No fluff or redundant information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields. With 3 parameters all documented, the description is complete for the tool's purpose. It could mention default limit or pagination, but the schema covers that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds return field details (key, category, size, TTL, preview) which are not in the schema, but it does not add significant meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List all cached context entries for this project' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like cache_get or recall_context by focusing on project-level context caching and listing what knowledge is cached.

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 says 'so you can decide whether to recall existing context or refresh it', which implies the use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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