Serena MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('List available memories') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'available' means in context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with stored data.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'List available memories.' The second sentence adds useful context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured with zero waste.

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 the complexity of listing stored data (memories), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'memories' are, how they're formatted in the output, or any constraints on availability. For a data-listing tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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's purpose: 'List available memories.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that tells the agent what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_memory' beyond mentioning it, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning that 'Any memory can be read using the `read_memory` tool,' which suggests this tool is for listing rather than reading. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about its specific context compared to other list/search tools.

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