memory_proposals

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context by narrowing scope to 'pending' candidates awaiting review. It says nothing about ordering, paging behavior, or what happens after a proposal is reviewed — those gaps are partly offset by the presence of an output schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate here, though it may be too terse relative to the surrounding workflow it belongs to.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only nature. What's missing is the meaning of 'k' and any pointer to the decision tool that consumes these proposals, which matters in a toolset this large.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'k' (default 20) is completely undocumented — it is almost certainly a result cap, but the description never says so. With no schema descriptions, the description was required to compensate and does not.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a clearly delimited resource ('pending generated-memory candidates') and a stated end purpose ('explicit review'). It distinguishes itself from memory_proposal_decide by describing only the listing of pending items, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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?

'for explicit review' implies this is the entry point of a review workflow, but the description never states when to call it versus memory_proposal_decide, review_candidates or candidate_review_run, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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