list_memory

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 does reveal two key behaviors: the list is in 'deterministic ID order' and it excludes 'full content.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/safe, nor does it describe any pagination, limits, or error handling. These are notable omissions for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It states the action, the resource scope, and two important behavioral details (deterministic order, no content) with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main purpose and key behavioral traits. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this versus read_memory, but given the sibling names and the 'without full content' phrasing, the context is mostly sufficient. An output schema defines the return structure, so that is not a deficiency here.

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 empty input schema already documents all parameters. The baseline score for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds behavioral context but does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. No credit is lost for not adding parameter info beyond the 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Memory metadata'), and a distinguishing characteristic ('without full content'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'read_memory' (which likely returns full content) and 'list_plans' (which lists a different resource). The mention of 'deterministic ID order' adds clarity about the operation's behavior.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need memory metadata but not full content. The phrase 'without full content' implies an alternative for full content (such as read_memory), but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state a when-not-to-use condition. This is more than merely implied but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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