list_memories

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

The description explains the default filtering by valid memories and describes the output format, providing transparency beyond the missing annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss side effects, but this is implied.

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 concise with no wasted words: a clear initial sentence, a parameter explanation, and an output format outline. Every sentence serves a purpose and is front-loaded.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and output structure adequately for a simple list tool. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. Siblings exist but are not addressed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'include_superseded' parameter with its effect ('also include old memories that have been superseded'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's title and default.

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 action ('List the memory warehouse') and specifies default behavior (only currently-valid memories). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings 'recall' and 'remember', which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'recall' and 'remember'. The description does not include when-not-to-use or alternative contexts.

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