memory_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 only says 'List memory entries' and does not mention ordering, pagination, return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a safe read operation. This is a minimal disclosure with no additional context.

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 with only five key words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and easily parsable by an agent.

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?

Despite being a simple listing tool, the description lacks important context. There is no output schema or mention of return values, no guidance on filtering behavior (e.g., whether prefix is exact match), and no explanation of how this tool relates to the broader memory/context tool family. The description is technically present but incomplete for making an informed invocation decision.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes all three parameters (limit, scope, prefix) with brief descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond the word 'filters', so it does not improve on the schema's parameter documentation.

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 ('memory entries') with explicit mention of optional filters. It clearly states what the tool does, but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_read, which may also list or retrieve memory content.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_search or memory_read. The phrase 'optional filters' implies filtering capability but does not explain the intended use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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