suppressed_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, and 'currently suppressed memories' clarifies the scope. It adds useful context about previews, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or side effects, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words or extraneous details.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what is listed (suppressed memories) and that previews are included. The simplicity of the tool means no additional context is required.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No further explanation is needed, and the description is consistent with the empty input schema.

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 resource ('currently suppressed memories') with an added detail ('with previews'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suppress_memories or unsuppress_memories by focusing on reporting rather than mutation.

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 about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as memory_status or recall_log. The description implies a read-only report, but it does not explicitly state when this tool is preferred over other memory inspection tools.

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