list_memories

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and filters, which are behavioral capabilities, but does not disclose data scoping (e.g., user-scoped vs global), ordering, or rate limits. For a benign list operation, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 wasted words. It is concise and structurally clear, though it lacks some detail—this is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 quite short. It does not state the return format, sorting, or pagination defaults, nor does it clarify the relationship to search_memories. For a 4-parameter tool, this is insufficient as a standalone guide.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only says 'with pagination and filters' without mapping tags/memory_type to filters or limit/offset to pagination. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify semantics like tag filtering behavior (AND/OR) or accepted values for memory_type.

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 memories with pagination and filters, which distinguishes it from get_memory (single retrieval) and search_memories (search-based). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_memories, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus search_memories or other siblings. The description does not explain the appropriate context for listing vs searching, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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