list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose sorting behavior and recency-based selection, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, auth requirements, or scoping limitations.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core behavior.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no required parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally viable for a basic call. However, it is incomplete for correct advanced use: the project parameter is unexplained, and there is no guidance on choosing this tool over search_memory.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the limit and project parameters, but it does not mention either. An agent is left to guess what 'project' filters or whether 'limit' caps the number of returned nodes.

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 the action (list), the resource (recent memory nodes), and a meaningful ordering rule (importance and recency). This makes the tool's basic behavior clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling search_memory tool.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus search_memory or other siblings. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, so an agent must infer the right context.

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