memo_signal_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile of this read-only list operation. The description adds the ordering behavior ('newest epoch first'), which is useful, though it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, output size expectations, or whether this returns signals the agent itself created.

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 declarative sentence that fully communicates the purpose and ordering behavior. There is zero wasted content, and the most important information (what it lists and the sort order) is front-loaded in the first few words.

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 tool has an output schema (context signal), 100% param coverage in the schema, and comprehensive annotations. For a simple read-only list operation with all parameters documented and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose. The main gap is lack of usage differentiation, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor omission rather than a critical one.

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 all three parameters (limit, marker, min_epoch) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The schema descriptions themselves are adequate but not enriched by the tool description.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combo ('List durable watcher markers') with an ordering note ('newest epoch first'), which clearly identifies the action and result. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the 'markers' resource is reasonably unique among the sibling list tools (memo_terminal_list, memo_list, etc.), and its uniqueness is partially evident from the name itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memo_signal_remember or memo_terminal_list. The description states 'durable watcher markers' but doesn't explain what these markers represent, when an agent should query them, or situations where another tool (e.g., memo_list or memo_stats) would be more appropriate.

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