list_memories

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: expired memories are excluded, namespace filters results. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or potential performance implications. Adequate but minimal for a list operation.

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?

Three succinct sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, filtering behavior, and usage alternative. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality but omits details about output (e.g., fields returned, limit, sorting) and error cases. It is minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaning to the lone parameter 'namespace' by explaining it filters by project/context. However, the schema has 0% description coverage, so the description only partially compensates. Does not specify allowed values, format, or default behavior when omitted.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List all stored memories'), with additional behavioral constraints ('namespace filters', 'Expired memories are excluded') and differentiation from sibling 'recall()'. This fully states what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states preference for 'recall()' for normal retrieval, providing a clear when-not-to-use guideline. Also explains that namespace is for project/context filtering. However, lacks guidance for other siblings (e.g., when to use this over 'memory_stats' or 'get_conversation').

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