list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosure, and it is insufficient. It only states 'list recent memories' without explaining ordering, return format, potential pagination, or any side effects (expected to be none). The agent gains minimal insight into the tool's behavior.

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 only two sentences and gets to the point immediately. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it is slightly under-specified in terms of detail. It is concise rather than overly terse, deserving a score above baseline.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response looks like or any limitations. It does not mention return structure, ordering, or the effect of the limit parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, the description remains incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and default, covering 100% of schema semantics. The description adds no extra parameter context, so it meets the baseline without compensation.

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 lists recent memories with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like remember (create) and forget (delete), but does not explicitly differentiate from recall, which could also retrieve memories.

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 phrase 'Useful for reviewing what has been remembered' gives a general use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like recall, nor exclusions. The intended context is implied rather than made precise.

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