list_beliefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two distinct return modes (legacy full array vs paged object) and oldest-first ordering — valuable behavioral context. It stops short of describing permissions, error conditions, or the concurrency caveats that the memory_type param hints at.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the paging modes. Every sentence carries meaning, though the project sentence overlaps the schema description.

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?

For a list tool with 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — the dual array-vs-paged return behavior. It is adequate, with only minor gaps around auth and error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the project and paging semantics. The description largely restates the project and limit/offset behavior rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opening verb+resource 'List beliefs' is unambiguous and the following sentences define the listing scope (project-filtered vs everything). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_belief or query_relevant, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives real contextual guidance for the parameters — 'omit to list everything', and 'use limit and offset for bounded, oldest-first pages'. However it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over get_belief/query_relevant, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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