list_memory

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: 'LOCAL/PRIVATE', 'machine-specific', 'gitignored — never shared'. This informs the agent about locality, privacy, and persistence, adding value beyond the empty schema.

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 sentences, extremely concise, with immediate purpose and no fluff. Every sentence earns its place by explaining what the tool does, its scope, and alternative tools.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description provides enough information: what fields are returned, the scope (local/private), and ties to related tools. It fully covers the context needed for correct usage.

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 schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information since none exists. No further compensation needed.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'personal-memory entries', specifying the returned fields (name, category, one-line summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning get_memory and search_memory.

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 explicitly says when to use alternatives ('Use get_memory to fetch one, search_memory to find by keyword'), providing clear guidance. It implies this tool is for listing all entries, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' direction, though still strong.

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