vmn_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool lists objects from the local vault and supports optional namespace filtering, but does not mention return format, pagination, or whether full objects or metadata are returned.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with the main action front-loaded and the optional filter stated directly. No filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior adequately, though it could be slightly more complete by noting what the returned listing contains.

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 100% and the only parameter, namespace, is already documented as an optional filter in the schema. The description restates this without adding extra semantic depth.

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 all memory objects in the local vault.' It clearly conveys scope and optional filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vmn_search and vmn_stats.

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 implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all memory objects or filter by namespace, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as vmn_search or vmn_recall. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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