memory_list_tool

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior details like sort defaults, limit default, tag matching semantics ('items must have at least one'), and project auto-detection from git root. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how filters combine, or sorting direction, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every line adds necessary information, and there is no repetition of schema-only details or filler content.

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 an output schema present and all six parameters documented, the description is mostly complete for invocation. However, it lacks guidance on pagination/offset behavior, filter combination semantics, and how listing differs from sibling tools like memory_search_tool or memory_recent_tool, making it slightly less complete given the tool ecosystem.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: valid values for type, status, and sort, default limit, tag filter semantics, and project auto-detection. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives an agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 clearly states the tool lists memory items with optional filters, naming the specific resource (memory items) and action (list). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like memory_recent_tool or memory_search_tool, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_search_tool, memory_recent_tool, or memory_get_tool. The filter parameters imply general listing use cases, but the description never states exclusions or preferred conditions.

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