list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially succeeds. It discloses that expired memories are excluded by default and that limit has a max of 200, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though implied), sorting behavior, or any other side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists parameters in a structured, easy-to-scan format. Every sentence and argument description earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 five optional parameters and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filters, and defaults. Minor gaps include sorting behavior or whether the limit applies before or after filtering, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all five parameters, including defaults for limit and include_expired. It could be more specific (e.g., format, case sensitivity), but it covers the essential meaning of each parameter.

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 a specific verb (list) and resource (memories) with optional filters. It is distinct from siblings like search_memory or get_memory, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage through optional filters and the default exclusion of expired memories, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_memory, get_memory, or find_by_entity. It is minimum viable but lacks clear alternatives.

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