memoryguard_history_list_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and that raw text is not returned, which are important behavioral disclosures. However, it does not mention pagination, output shape, or any other behavioral constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key limitation without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level summary. It does not explain parameter semantics, filtering behavior, response format, or how this listing relates to other history tools. Substantial additional detail is needed for correct invocation.

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 adds no meaning to any of the six parameters (limit, scope, offset, date_to, date_from, extracted). The description's job is to compensate for the blank schema, but it completely fails to do so.

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 operation: listing the trusted Agent's local conversation-history sessions. It also adds the distinguishing note that raw text is not returned, which helps separate it from history_read and history_search, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like history_search, history_read, or history_timeline. The phrase 'raw text is not returned' implies it is for metadata-level listing, but there is no direct when/when-not guidance.

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