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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the return shape in detail. It also clarifies that each memory includes a trimmed assets list, which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover error behavior or authentication, but for a simple read-only list tool the disclosure is solid.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a usage hint, a compact Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds information; there is no redundancy or fluff. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all the essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, the meaning of each parameter, and what fields the response contains. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions like null filter behavior or error handling are not substantial given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: every parameter is explained with its semantics. for_date is described as an ISO date with behavior and an example, is_saved is defined for true/false, and size is given a default and meaning. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 and resource ('List memories') and clarifies what memories are in Immich's domain: 'on this day' collections of photos from past years. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_assets, create_memory, update_memory, and delete_memory by defining the unique concept it operates on.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use this to build a tal día como hoy story, album or PDF.' It clearly implies when to call this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_assets for raw asset listing. This is clear context without exclusions.

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