list_memories

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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists files and directories, but omits key behaviors such as whether recursion is supported (despite the 'recursive' parameter), what happens when the path is invalid, or whether hidden files are included. No side effects are mentioned.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and communicates the core function efficiently. There is no wasted content.

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 and has an output schema, but the description is still under-specified. It does not mention the recursive parameter, which significantly affects behavior, nor does it provide any context about typical usage. No annotations exist to fill the gaps, leaving the description incomplete for a reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate adequately. The phrase 'repository-relative path' adds meaning to the 'path' parameter, but the 'recursive' parameter is completely unaddressed. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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 identifies the resource as 'files and directories below a repository-relative path'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory (which presumably reads content) and search_memories (which searches).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The use case is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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