memory_list

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds real context: isolation by project_path, no automatic import of personal memory, and that the runtime reports the actual backend. The last clause is vague but the isolation caveat is genuinely useful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the semantic-search exclusion. The trailing 'runtime reports actual embedding and storage backend' is slightly off-topic for a list operation and dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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?

A read-only list tool with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and an explicit safety profile is largely self-describing; the description contributes the isolation model and filtering scope. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 coverage is 100%, so tags, namespace, limit and offset are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the namespace/tags filtering at a high level and adds no format or semantics beyond it.

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 and resource ('Enumerate stored memory entries') and explicitly distinguishes itself from semantic lookup with 'without semantic search', which separates it from the memory_search sibling.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('project-scoped persistent memory') and the implicit contrast with semantic search, but stops short of naming memory_search or memory_retrieve as the alternatives an agent should pick instead.

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