lc_list_ai_memories

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully describe behavior. It only states 'list memory entries,' lacking details on whether it returns all entries, pagination, or any side effects. It is a minimal behavioral hint.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but at the cost of necessary detail. It is front-loaded but under-informative.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return format, parameter semantics, and usage context.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the three parameters (oid, agent, partition_key). The agent name fails to clarify their roles or usage.

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 action (list) and resource (memory entries for an ai_memory agent record). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like lc_get_ai_memory but does not explicitly differentiate from lc_list_ai_memory_records.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_get_ai_memory or lc_list_ai_memory_records. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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