List memories (browse)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results include previews and processing status (not full content) and are ordered by recency, plus references the exact-vs-vague date rule. This goes beyond the structured metadata without over-claiming.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then usage examples, then parameter summary, then cross-references. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose; it is slightly longer than minimal but well-organized and appropriately scoped for the tool's complexity.

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 browse/list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, parameter semantics, and points to the relevant decision rules and sibling tools. It could specify the exact return fields, but the mention of previews and processing status suffices given the context signals.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description summarizes them (slug, ISO 8601, default limit) but adds little beyond what the schema already documents. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clear verb+resource+scope: 'List memories with previews and processing status, ordered by most recently created.' It explicitly contrasts with siblings such as ragionex_recall_memory (topic-based search) and ragionex_view_memory (full content), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: browse when there is no specific topic, with concrete example queries ('what did I save last week?'). It also points to the LIST vs RECALL priority rule and directs users to ragionex_view_memory for full content, covering alternatives and exclusions.

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