memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that results are 'recent', saying nothing about ordering, pagination, default result count behavior, permissions, or what fields are returned for a multi-parameter list tool.

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 short phrase with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is concise only because it is minimal, bordering on under-specification for a tool with three parameters.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, three parameters at 33% coverage, and a one-line description, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool confidently. Nothing about result shape, filtering behavior, or defaults is covered.

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 only 33% (only 'limit' is documented as defaulting to 20), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'type' and 'project' parameters are unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource with a scope qualifier ('list recent memories'), so the agent knows it enumerates stored memories rather than mutating them. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as memory_search, memory_context, or memory_recall, leaving the agent to infer which listing tool to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer memory_search or memory_context, and no stated prerequisites. The word 'recent' weakly implies browsing without a query, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.

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