List Memories

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need not restate those. It adds a little context by referencing 'given identifiers' as filters, but does not disclose behavior such as default scope when no identifiers are provided, pagination semantics, or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 no filler or redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the core action and object clearly.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the filtering behavior across identifiers, pagination defaults, or what a successful response looks like. This leaves an agent under-informed about how to invoke the tool effectively.

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 50% (agent_id, owner_id, session_id have descriptions; limit, offset, cross_session do not). The description mentions 'identifiers' but does not explain which parameters are identifiers or how filtering works, nor does it compensate for the undocumented pagination and cross_session parameters. Parameter semantics remain ambiguous beyond what the schema already says.

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 'List stored memories for the given identifiers.' It uses a specific verb (list), names the resource (stored memories), and mentions scoping by identifiers. It is distinct from 'get' or 'search' siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from lyzr_memory_search or clarify what 'identifiers' encompasses.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_memory_get or lyzr_memory_search. It does not mention that all parameters are optional filters, nor what happens when no identifiers are provided. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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