List Memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional context.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a useful follow-up action. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 has 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implying return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., listing scope or format), but the essentials are covered for this simple tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on tool purpose instead, which aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 available memories' (verb+resource), which is specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'read_memory' by mentioning that any listed memory can be read with that tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like 'list_dir' or 'get_symbols_overview'.

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 implies usage by stating 'Any memory can be read using the `read_memory` tool,' suggesting this tool is for discovery before reading. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other listing tools (e.g., 'list_dir' for files) or alternatives for memory access, leaving some context gaps.

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