goldhold_memory_namespaces

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only list operation that returns counts and last-updated timestamps, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'memory folder,' mention any authorization or side effects, or describe the response shape beyond the two stats.

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 with no filler. Every word adds information: the verb 'List,' the scope 'all,' the resource 'memory folders,' and the specified stats. It is an ideal length for a no-input list tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: an agent knows no input is needed and the expected output (folder names, counts, last-updated times). The only slight gap is that 'memory folders' is not defined, but this is minor for such a simple read-only operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with no properties. The description does not need to add any parameter-level detail. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is nothing more to document.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'List all memory folders'. It also names the exact output field ('stats (count, last updated)') and the scope ('all'), which differentiates it from siblings like goldhold_memory_read (singular read) and goldhold_store (write). This is enough for an agent to understand the tool's unique role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as goldhold_memory_read, goldhold_search, or goldhold_store. It only states what the tool does, not which situations call for it or when a sibling 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.