list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a key behavior: 'Expired memories are excluded.' It implies that omitting namespace lists all memories, but doesn't mention pagination or authentication, leaving some gaps.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the parameter behavior, and the alternative guidance. Front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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 one-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, param semantics, an exclusion behavior, and an alternative. It could mention ordering or pagination, but the given detail is adequate 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 schema has no descriptions for the namespace parameter, so the description's statement that it 'filters by project/context' adds crucial meaning. However, it doesn't explain the default behavior when namespace is null, so compensation is partial.

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 opens with 'List all stored memories,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Prefer recall() for normal retrieval,' making it clear this is for bulk listing rather than targeted retrieval.

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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'Prefer recall() for normal retrieval,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool. It also clarifies the namespace parameter usage, giving context for project/context filtering.

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