List durable memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping dimension (filter by collection or lifecycle status) and notes that status vocabularies are project-declared and vary by collection, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema. This adds good value atop strong annotations.

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 tight sentence that captures purpose and filtering dimensions with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the collection\.enum in the schema carries the detailed vocabulary without cluttering the description.

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 read-only list tool with 100% parameter coverage, an output schema present, and strong annotations, the description is quite complete. The one gap is guidance on how it relates to project_search/project_get_record for discovering memory content, but this is minor given the structured annotations and schema richness.

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 all four parameters (limit, offset, status, collection). The description lists what the tool filters by but doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides — the collection enum is fully specified in-schema, and the status field already explains its variability. At full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb+resource ('List durable memory') and enumerates the content types (learnings, decisions, incidents, conventions, context) plus the filtering dimensions (collection, lifecycle status). It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like project_card_list or project_changelog_list — the memory vs card distinction is implied by the title and description.

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 a read/list operation for durable memory records and mentions filtering options. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this (e.g., vs project_search for cross-cutting queries or project_card_list for card-type records). The breadth of sibling tools makes this guidance gap noticeable, but the readOnlyHint and list-focused purpose provide reasonable implied context.

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