memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering (everyone, groups, own, first two marked) and the 100-note warning, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or how the 'find' parameter affects the listing. This is adequate but lacks some explicit behavioral details.

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 series of four sentences that mix purpose, usage, and behavioral notes. It is not tightly structured and could be more concise, but each sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, ordering, and the 100-note warning. The output format is implied by the listed attributes, and the 'find' parameter is handled by the schema. Minor omissions (e.g., whether the warning applies when filtering) do not significantly impede correct use.

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 schema already provides a full description of the 'find' parameter (filters by name, category, description, or text), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists memory notes with their metadata (number, category, kind, description, size, time), and distinguishes itself from memory_load by noting texts are asked for separately. It is a specific verb-resource description that differentiates from siblings.

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?

It explicitly instructs to read it at the start of a session and explains when kCritical notes are loaded versus the rest. It also advises warning the user past 100 notes, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the guidance is sufficient.

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