memory_list

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 ordering (newest first) and the shape of returned content ('top memory types'), which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, how limit interacts with the ordering, what 'scope' filters, or whether this is a pure read operation.

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 single sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (newest first) is front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but two parameters are completely undocumented and there are no annotations. For a list tool with a nullable 'scope' argument and a defaulted 'limit', the definition leaves the agent guessing at invocation semantics.

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%, and the description explains neither parameter. 'limit' (default 30) and 'scope' (nullable string) are undocumented in both places, so the agent cannot tell what scope accepts or how limit bounds the result set. The ordering hint is output-related, not parameter-related.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stored memories') plus the ordering (newest first) and the returned content (top memory types). It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like memory_recall or memory_stats, so an agent must infer which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. The phrase 'list stored memories' implies a browse/inventory use case, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over memory_recall.

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