list_remembered

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

The description lists the return fields (key, category, size, TTL remaining, content preview), providing good behavioral insight. No annotations exist, so no contradiction, but it does not mention mutability or side effects, which are minimal for a read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding usage context and return details. Every sentence is meaningful and 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?

For a simple list tool with 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 cached context entries for a project, using specific verbs ('List') and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like recall_context and cache_get by focusing on listing all entries.

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 explains when to use this tool ('so you can decide whether to recall existing context or refresh it'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like cache_keys.

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