列出用户全部记忆

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering and pagination context, but it claims '默认返回最近 20 条' while the schema's limit default is 50—an internal contradiction that makes the described behavior misleading.

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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior, which is good. However, the final clause about defaulting to 20 entries is not only unnecessary but contradicts the schema, so the sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 read-only paginated list tool, the schema and annotations carry much of the needed information. Still, the default discrepancy between description and schema, plus the absence of any guidance distinguishing this from cognitive_search, leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for limit and offset, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the description introduces inaccurate parameter-related information by stating a default of 20 items while the schema specifies limit default 50, which actively undermines correct invocation.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: listing all user memories in reverse chronological order with pagination. The phrase '全部用户记忆' differentiates it from search-oriented siblings like cognitive_search, though it does not explicitly name any 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?

'用于浏览记忆全貌' gives a clear scenario for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as cognitive_search or cognitive_summary, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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