list_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say that include_shared/include_archived default to false (i.e., that results are narrowed by default), does not mention pagination behavior, and does not describe the returned metadata fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and result type, with no filler. Slightly thin rather than padded, which is the preferable failure mode.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a 'metadata overview' contains and how shared/archived filtering affects results. Neither is covered, leaving real gaps for a fairly configurable list tool.

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 86%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including defaults and enums. The description adds only the phrase 'metadata overview' and no additional meaning about limit/offset/sort/filters, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List memory entries') plus the shape of the result ('metadata overview'), so the agent knows this is a browse/enumerate operation. It does not, however, contrast itself with recall or the other memory siblings, so a reader must infer why this differs from recall.

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?

'Useful for inventory and inspection' gestures at when to call it, but gives no explicit when-not and never names recall as the alternative for filtered/targeted retrieval. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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