memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. The claim 'Returns keys + timestamps + tags only' contradicts the schema's privacy_mode parameter, which can return full entries in structured/raw modes. This misleading simplification is a significant transparency gap.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and routing to memory_get are front-loaded, and the namespace scoping is a useful one-line addition.

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 description covers the primary use case and points to the right sibling for values, but it omits any explanation of the privacy_mode parameter, which is central to the tool's output behavior. Combined with the misleading return statement, the description is incomplete for a tool with five parameters.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already explains. The only added context (filters and return payload) is partially misleading because it ignores the privacy_mode parameter and misrepresents the default behavior. The description does not clarify how privacy_mode affects output, leaving agents with incorrect expectations.

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 keys with optional filters (prefix, tag, since) and explicitly differentiates itself from memory_get by noting it returns only keys, timestamps, and tags, not values. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and sibling distinction.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call memory_get for values, which is a clear alternative for a common use case. However, it does not mention other siblings like memory_search or memory_stats, so guidance on when to use this vs. those is absent.

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