memory_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering and top memory types but omits permissions, pagination, result limits, and other operational behavior for a listing tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, although it leaves important parameter and usage gaps.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema, so return-value details need not be repeated. Even so, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is only minimally adequate because limit and scope semantics remain underspecified.

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 needs to compensate. It explains that omitted scope means every scope, but it does not explain accepted scope values or the limit parameter's effect or boundaries.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists stored memories. It also adds useful scope details like newest-first ordering and inclusion of top memory types. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings such as memory_recall or memory_stats.

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 only usage-like guidance is that omitting scope returns every scope. The description does not say when to use memory_list instead of memory_recall, memory_stats, or other sibling retrieval tools.

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