list_memories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It correctly communicates a read-only listing operation and documents basic filters, but it does not clarify sorting behavior, what 'recent' means, or how filters combine. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear args list. Every sentence adds value without verbose filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return value details are likely covered elsewhere. The description covers the tool's action and all parameters, though it could clarify ordering and filter combination semantics. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple list tool.

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 compensates well by explaining every parameter: limit as maximum count, tag/author as filters, and memory_type with an explicit enum-like list. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema properties.

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?

States a specific action (list) and resource (recent memories from the project), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_memories, but 'list recent memories' does enough to convey the core purpose.

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 phrase 'list recent memories' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over search_memories, get_memory, or list_tags. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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