memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states ordering by most recent update and optional filtering, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, the effect or default of the limit parameter, authentication requirements, or what the returned records contain. For a read-oriented listing tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core operation and optional filters, which is exactly what a concise tool description should do.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of behavioral and parameter detail. It omits the limit parameter, pagination behavior, default ordering guarantees beyond 'most recently updated', and return-value expectations, leaving the agent with an incomplete operational picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'scope' and 'tag' as filters, giving partial semantic meaning, but it omits 'limit' entirely and provides no value syntax, defaults, or constraints for any parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List most recently updated memories'. It also names the optional filters, so the agent understands the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_recall, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 says the tool supports optional scope and tag filters, which implies a browsing/list use case, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_search, memory_recall, or memory_get. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing instructions.

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