list_memos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool supports pagination, sorting, and CEL filtering, but it omits defaults (e.g., whether archived or deleted memos are included by default, default sort order) and never explicitly states the operation is a read-only query. These are clear gaps for a list operation.

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 10-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource; every word earns its place. Given that the schema carries the parameter detail, this brevity is appropriate and not under-specification.

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 6-parameter list tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not indicate what the response contains (memo list, next page token) or default filtering behavior. The rich schema covers parameters, but an agent is left to infer response shape and defaults.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; each of the 6 parameters is already documented in detail. The description's mention of pagination/sorting/filtering adds a helpful conceptual mapping to pageToken/pageSize, orderBy, and filter, but no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb ('List'), the resource ('memos'), and three distinctive capabilities (pagination, sorting, CEL filtering). These capabilities, plus the contrasting sibling names (create/get/update/delete), make it easy for an agent to distinguish this from get_memo and from the attachment-related tools.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. Usage is only implied: it is the listing/query operation, contrastable with the single-record get_memo and the mutation tools. An agent must infer when to prefer this over get_memo or list_memo_attachments.

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