memory_list

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description's contribution is the ordering guarantee ('most recent'), which is genuinely useful behavioral information. It says nothing about what a returned note contains, how ordering ties work, or whether paging beyond the limit is possible.

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?

A single short clause with zero filler and the resource plus ordering front-loaded. It is efficient but reads as a fragment, and a few more words on return shape or filtering behavior would have been better spent than none.

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 simple zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the agent guessing about return fields and whether 'most recent' means strictly descending by timestamp, which matters for a listing tool.

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 50%: limit already documents 'Default 20, max 50' while kind has only a bare enum. The phrase 'optionally of one kind' does clarify that kind is an optional filter returning only that category, adding some meaning beyond the enum values, but nothing is said about limit or interplay between the two parameters.

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 names a specific resource and ordering ('most recent notes') plus an optional filter ('of one kind'), which distinguishes browsing from siblings like memory_search or memory_get in practice. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred from the ordering language rather than stated.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as memory_search for keyword lookup or memory_get for a specific note. The only guidance-like content is that the kind filter is optional, which is a parameter fact rather than usage direction.

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