list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that listing is possible. It does not mention read-only behavior, response format, filtering semantics, pagination, or ordering behavior beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

One tight sentence with the main action and capabilities front-loaded, and no filler. It is concise, though it could include more useful detail without becoming bloated.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no schema coverage, a one-sentence description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine how filters interact, what each ordering mode means, or how this tool relates to recall.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'filters and ordering' without identifying tag or project filters or clarifying the order enum values. It adds little meaning beyond the property names in the schema.

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 verb ('list') and resource ('memories'), and signals optional filters and ordering. It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like remember and forget, though it does not explicitly contrast with recall.

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?

No guidance on when to use list_memories versus alternatives like recall or get_stats. The description implies a batch read operation but provides no exclusions, use cases, or conditions for choosing this tool.

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