list_memory_blocks

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

Annotations only provide a title ('List Memory Blocks'), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. However, since annotations don't contradict the description (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint provided), and the description adds some context by mentioning the system ('Letta system'), it meets the baseline for minimal transparency without annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, and the second sentence efficiently provides usage guidelines without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, and there's no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for an AI 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits, which could be relevant for a list operation in a system context. Since the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but some behavioral context is missing, preventing a perfect score.

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%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'filter' for searching, 'page' for pagination). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filters combine or pagination defaults. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and no extra value is added by the description.

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's purpose: 'List all memory blocks available in the Letta system.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('memory blocks'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_memory_block' and 'update_memory_block' by mentioning them as alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_passages' or 'list_agents', which slightly limits sibling distinction.

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 explicit usage guidelines by stating when to use this tool ('List all memory blocks') and when to use alternatives ('Use create_memory_block to add new ones, update_memory_block to modify, or attach_memory_block to link them to agents'). This clearly directs the agent to this tool for listing and to other tools for creation, modification, or attachment, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios.

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