sage_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. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that the tool does not modify memories, nor does it mention any permissions, pagination behavior, or output format. This lack of explicit behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 and front-loaded, comprising two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action ('Browse memories with filters'), and the second provides concrete use cases. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficiently written.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention sort options, pagination defaults, or the shape of the response. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and moderate complexity, the description should provide more context about behavior and return values, but it only covers filtering examples.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by mentioning domain, status, and tag filters, but it does not explain sort, limit, or offset beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the filtering concept without adding new semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 tool browses memories with filters, naming specific filter dimensions (domain, status, tag). This gives a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sage_recall or sage_timeline, which may also retrieve memories, so it falls 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to see what memories exist in a domain, with a specific status, or tagged with a label,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it for filtered browsing.

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