goclaw_memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' documents, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is listed and for whom.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation with 2 parameters) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, pagination) and return values. For a basic list tool, it meets the minimum but doesn't provide a complete picture for an agent to use it confidently without additional context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (agent_id as required, user_id as optional filter). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool lists documents 'for an agent' (aligning with agent_id). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('List') and resource ('memory documents stored for an agent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like goclaw_memory_create, goclaw_memory_delete, and goclaw_memory_get by focusing on listing rather than creating, deleting, or retrieving individual documents. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all documents vs. filtered) or differentiate from other list tools like goclaw_agent_list or goclaw_session_list beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing agent), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying documents), or comparisons to sibling tools like goclaw_memory_get (for single documents) or goclaw_agent_files_list (for files vs. memory). Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.

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