list_persistent_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally, but the description contributes nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, result size, or what happens when bot_id has no memories. With annotations lowering the bar, the absence of any added behavioral context keeps this at 2.

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 text is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than concision — a single fragment with no structure, no front-loaded scope, and no sentence that conveys actionable information.

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 tool with nested object parameters, an undocumented cursor ('after'), a capped limit, and an idempotency key, a four-word restatement of the name is entirely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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% and the schema contains nested objects (arguments with after, basis, intent, limit, bot_id) plus an idempotency_key — none of which the description explains. Parameters like 'basis' and 'intent' are opaque without documentation, so the description fails to compensate for a total coverage gap.

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?

"list persistent memories" merely restates the tool name with no added specificity — no indication of what a 'persistent memory' is, what scope is returned, or how results differ from the sibling list_bot_memories. An agent learns nothing beyond the verb 'list'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely-named sibling list_bot_memories, and no hint about required preconditions such as a valid bot_id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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