list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the non-obvious default that expired memories are hidden and the limit ceiling of 200. It omits other behavioral facts an agent would want: result ordering, pagination/offset behavior, and whether this is an unauthenticated or user-scoped read.

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 front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args block, with no filler prose. The structure is conventional but efficient; the parameter lines are one-liners that each carry information.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, so return-value explanation is not needed, and every parameter is at least named and described. The only meaningful gap for correct invocation is result ordering and whether the limit is paginated, which the description never addresses.

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, and it does: it explains that tag is a single case-insensitive value, that thread_id returns all related memories, and it repeats the limit default of 25 with a max of 200. Only `category` is under-explained, with no hint of the accepted category vocabulary.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List saved memories") and adds a scope rule ("Expired memories excluded by default"), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not name a sibling such as search_memory or find_by_entity to distinguish when a plain listing is preferred, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filters and the include_expired toggle, giving the agent a clear default behavior. However, it never states when to choose this over search_memory, get_memory, or find_by_entity, so routing between sibling tools is left to inference.

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