list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies the data source and scope ('local AIFACT remember this items'), which is useful, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or whether any implicit filtering or side effects occur.

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 filler. The parenthetical adds clarifying context without bloating the text.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description and schema together provide enough to invoke it correctly. A few gaps remain: no mention of what the returned entries look like and no explicit alternative routing, but these are minor for this operation.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Optional filter on memory name or content'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Warp saved memories'), and clarifies the exact scope with 'local AIFACT remember this items'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_memory (single retrieval) and search (broader exploration).

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you want to list saved memories. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like get_memory or search, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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