mem_list

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 states ordering ('most-recent-first') and optional filters, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, what 'kind' and 'project' mean, whether the list is bounded, or what the return format looks like. For a read tool, the lack of annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('List memories most-recent-first') and then mentions optional filters. No wasted words, though it could have added a bit more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what 'kind' values are valid, whether 'limit' is capped, how results are returned, or how this differs from mem_search and mem_recall. The sibling set is large, and the description doesn't help disambiguate.

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. It mentions 'kind' and 'project' as filter dimensions, which adds some meaning, but it doesn't explain the valid values for 'kind' or how 'limit' interacts with the ordering. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('memories') with a clear ordering ('most-recent-first'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_get (single retrieval) and mem_write (creation). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the list/retrieve/write distinction is clear enough.

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 implies usage for browsing memories with optional filters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus mem_search or mem_recall. The 'Optionally filter by kind or project' gives some context, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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