list_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: memories are markdown notes at a specific path, persist across MCP conversations, may have YAML frontmatter used as a one-line summary in the listing, and fall back to the daemon's resolved workspace when 'workspace' is omitted. This goes beyond a basic one-liner, though it stops short of detailing output format or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action appears first, followed by necessary context in short sentences. Every sentence contributes meaning—storage location, persistence purpose, frontmatter behavior, and the default workspace fallback. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, single-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, where memories live, how frontmatter influences the listing, and how the workspace default works. It does not describe sorting, error handling, or the exact return structure, but it is sufficiently informative for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter ('workspace') with 'Absolute workspace path. Defaults to the daemon's resolved workspace.' The description repeats this same information without adding examples, format details, or edge-case guidance. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra value, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List memories saved for a workspace.' It clearly distinguishes the listing action from sibling tools like read_memory, search_memories, and delete_memory by focusing on the enumeration of all stored memories. Additional detail about markdown location and frontmatter summaries reinforces the purpose.

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 explains the memory concept and the default workspace behavior, which implies when to use this tool (e.g., when you need an overview of saved memories). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use search_memories to find by content' or 'use read_memory for a single memory.'

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