ddflow_memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys ordering (recency vs. relevance ranking) and that the content is prerequisite operational knowledge, but stays silent on read-only safety, result size limits, and what the returned records look like despite there being no output 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 compact clauses that front-load the resource and ordering before the usage note; no filler. The density is appropriate for a list tool, though the second clause is doing a lot with a semicolon splice.

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 filtered list with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ordering, and when to call it. It omits return format and result-size expectations, which is a minor gap but not blocking for a read operation.

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 100%, so all four parameters (all, limit, query, as_agent) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the query-ranking behaviour, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource ('the project's operational memories') and the ordering behaviour ('newest first -- or ranked against query'), which an agent can distinguish from sibling memory tools like ddflow_memory_add/forget. The scope phrase 'what an agent must know before touching anything on this machine' further pins down what the list contains.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('read them at session start') and a concrete trigger ('if ddflow_brief truncated the list'). It does not name competing alternatives such as ddflow_recall or ddflow_decision_list, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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