memorable_list_attachments

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing that the result includes download URLs, which is not derivable from the schema, but it says nothing about pagination, URL expiry, ordering, or what happens when a memory has no attachments.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the resource and return content are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the absence of annotations, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, and the mention of download URLs partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and leaves return shape and edge cases unexplained.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter memory_id is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to "a memory" merely restates the parameter rather than adding format or constraint detail.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("file attachments and download URLs"), scoped to "a memory". This clearly distinguishes it from the write-side siblings memorable_upload_attachment and memorable_delete_attachment, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the memory must exist), and no routing to siblings such as memorable_get_memory. Usage is only implied by the phrase "associated with a memory".

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