list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that it lists all memories for the authenticated identity's bucket and describes the return structure (ids and remembered text). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a read-only list operation, this is sufficient contextual detail.

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, front-loaded with the specific action ('List all stored memories'), and includes a clear return value statement. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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, no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and return type. It mentions the authenticated identity's bucket and the returned fields, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed; the schema fully accounts for the empty parameter list.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('all stored memories for your authenticated identity's bucket'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_memory by emphasizing 'all' and 'authenticated identity's bucket', leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 the tool is for retrieving all memories, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_memory or add_memory. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer usage from the word 'all' versus the sibling tool names.

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