mdan_memory_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the selection criterion of 'memory sidecar' but gives no further behavioral detail such as return format, pagination, or how sidecar presence is determined.

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: 'List agents that have a memory sidecar.' Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description names the output object, and the annotation covers the safety profile. The lack of an output schema leaves the exact return shape unspecified, but 'List agents' is sufficient for a straightforward invocation.

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, so the description has no input semantics to explain. The schema is trivially complete, and naming what the tool lists satisfies the requirement.

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 ('List') and names a specific resource ('agents that have a memory sidecar'), making its target clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the likely similar sibling mdan_list_agents, 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of mdan_list_agents or the memory_* family. The phrase 'agents that have a memory sidecar' implies a filtering use case, but alternatives and exclusions are never mentioned.

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