user_memory_list

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint' and 'idempotentHint' as true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it lists by status, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens with the limit parameter. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, but it could add more value without losing conciseness, such as noting the output schema or default behavior.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about pagination, default limit, status filtering behavior, and how it differs from 'memory_list'. It is minimally sufficient but not robust.

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 only hints at the 'status' parameter ('by lifecycle status') but does not explain the 'limit' parameter, default values, or the meaning of each status. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand parameter 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 ('user-level memories') and a filtering dimension ('by lifecycle status'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'memory_list' or 'user_memory_remember', which could cause confusion.

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. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context about prerequisites. Given the presence of several memory-related sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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