memory.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior and the return of total_count, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has performance implications. The safety profile is absent.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination, followed by usage guidance and return info. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description mentions pagination and total_count but does not explain the return format (e.g., list of entries), how offset/limit interact, or how to handle scope filtering. Adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex pagination workflows.

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% with all 6 parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions pagination generally and total_count, not parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all memory entries for a project with pagination', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling memory.search by clarifying 'not just search results', making the tool's unique role obvious.

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 tells when to use this tool ('when you need to see all memories') and explicitly contrasts it with 'just search results', referencing the sibling search tool. However, it does not mention when not to use (e.g., for a single entry use memory.get) or other context like rate limits.

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