List memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining memory is 'durable' and 'shape every future ad', which provides behavioral context beyond the safety profile. It also explicitly states 'Read-only, free', consistent with annotations. No contradiction, and it adds useful context about the tool's impact.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the definition of memory, its significance, and the read-only/free notes. Every clause earns 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 listing tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description adequately explains what memory is and that the tool lists it. It doesn't describe the return format, but that's not required without an output schema. The schema covers parameter details. It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit with default/max, category with allowed values). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it doesn't reference them. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 tool lists the workspace's Memory, a specific resource, and explains what that memory contains (brand, audience, taste, do/don't rules). This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_brands or list_playbooks, and from memory-related siblings like remember and forget.

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 this is for viewing memory in a read-only manner and notes it's 'free', but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like remember (save) or forget (delete). It provides good context about memory's role in future ads but lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance. Since siblings are well-known, the purpose implies usage clearly.

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